Workload study, Child Protective Services

ClOLlGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDlTOR I I E N F R % I
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
ALJDITBR GENERAL.
June 28, 1991
e Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Ms. Linda Moore- Cannon, Director
Department of Economic Security
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, Workload Study -
Child Protective Services. This report i s i n response to Session Laws
1990, Chapter 237, Section 21.
The report analyzes Child Protective Services workloads in several ways.
We found that the average number of cases per worker ranged from 15 to
19; the statewide average was 17 cases. Weighting cases to reflect their
relative d i f f i c u l t y showed that 19 percent of the case workers had
excessive workloads. Our analysis found that high staffing ratios may
result from CPS' i n a b i l i t y to f i l l existing positions and disparities in
staff al locations among d i s t r i c t s .
We encountered three significant limitations in attempting to determine
appropriate long term staffing levels. These limitations include the
lack of information about the number of cases that are appropriate for
investigation, limited information on the amount of staff time actually
spent providing child protective services and the lack of any widely
accepted c r i t e r i a for determining optimum staffing levels. Addressing
these limitations requires a joint e f f o r t between the Legislature and the
Department of Economic Security.
Department of Economic Security staff reviewed the preliminary draft of
this report and their comments have been incorporated. We did not
request a formal agency response.
My staff and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the report.
The report w i l l be pub1 i c l y released on July 1, 1991.
Sincerely,
d w a s I?. Norton
Aud~ tor General
DRN : l mn
2700 NORTH CENTRAL. AVENlJE SUITE 7 0 0 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 6 0 2 ) 2 5 5 - 4 3 8 5 ' FAX ( 6 0 2 ) 255- 1251
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a special analysis of
Child Protective Service ( CPS) workloads within the Department of
Economic Secur i ty ( DES) . This study was conducted in response to Sess ion
Laws 1990, Chapter 237, Section 21. . .
The Joint Legislative Oversight Comnittee on Child Protective Services
recomended that the Legislature direct the Auditor General to conduct
this study. The comnittee was concerned about the lack of information
about the number of staff and funding needed to investigate 100 percent
of calls deemed appropriate for investigation. The scope of the study
was defined by statute. The study included an assessment of the number
and type of reports, caseload size, caseload mix, and staffing ratios.
Number And Tges Of Reports
CPS Receivq ( see pages 7 through 11)
Between August 1, 1990 and January 31, 1991, CPS received 18,113 reports
of child abuse or neglect. Approximately 17 percent of the reports
( 3,000 cases) alleged life- threatening or severe situations. Another
one- third ( 5,918) were defined as moderate physical, sexual, or medical
abuse. One- half of the reports ( 9,195) alleged minor or potential abuse
and neglect.
CPS caseworkers investigated 52 percent of the 18,113 reports and
recorded 39 percent as " information onlyH reports. GPS recorded 7
percent of the reports received as " appropriate for investigation but not
investigated. lW However, this figure may actually understate the extent
to which CPS does not investigate appropriate cases. Some CPS
supervisors indicated that they record cases as " information only" rather
than " appropriate for investigation but not investigated" because they
lack sufficient staff to investigate these reports. We were unable to
determine the extent o f t h i s practice because supervisors rarely document
their reasons for categorizing reports as " information only.''
Caseload Size ( see pages 13 through 18)
Caseload size was determined three ways: average caseload for full- time
caseworkers, average case load by type of caseworker, and weighted
caseloads, which reflect the degree of d i f f i c u l t y of various cases.
Statewide, the average caseload for al l ful I- t ime caseworkers ( including
contract s t a f f ) was 17 cases. D i s t r i c t II(') had the highest average
with 19 cases per caseworker. D i s t r i c t s I I I and V had the lowest
averages w i t h 15 cases per caseworker.
Caseloads also varied for each type of caseworker. CPS uses intake
caseworkers to investigate reports of abuse and short term case
management. Ongoing caseworkers provide long term case management. The
Statewide average for intake caseworkers was 16 cases per caseworker.
The average for intake caseworkers ranged from a high of 17 cases in
D i s t r i c t I to a low of 12 cases in D i s t r i c t IV. Ongoing caseworkers
averaged 17 cases Statewide. D i s t r i c t II averaged 22 ongoing cases per
caseworker, and D i s t r i c t V had the lowest average caseload of 10 cases
per ongo i ng caseworker .
Since caseload averages alone do not provide a complete workload picture,
we also analyzed workloads using a weighting method similar to the system
used in New Mexico. The New Mexico system measures workload by the types
of cases caseworkers manage. New Mexico determined that the amount of
time required to work a case varied depending on the case goal. By
weighting cases according to the amount of time various types of cases
require, we determined that 19 percent of the caseworkers had caseloa'ds
that exceeded the maximum standard of the New Mexico case weighting
model. Almost 70 percent of these caseworkers are located i n D i s t r i c t s I
and II. In addition, several caseworkers had caseloads that were
significantly below the maximum standard. This indicates that in a l l
d i s t r i c t s some caseworkers may have workloads that could be increased to
he l p reduce other caseworkers ' excess i ve work l oads .
( 1) Child Protective Services i s a function of the DES Administration f o r Children, Youth
and Families ( ACYF). ACYF has six d i s t r i c t s : D i s t r i c t I- Maricopa County; D i s t r i c t
11- Pima County; D i s t r i c t III- Coconino, Yavapai , Navajo, and Apache Counties; D i s t r i c t
IV- Yuma, flohave, and La Paz Counties; D i s t r i c t V- Pinal and Gila Counties; and D i s t r i c t
VI- Cochi se, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, and Graham Counties.
Staffincl Ratiq ( see pages 19 through 26)
In addition to reviewing average caseloads, we also analyzed staffing
ratios. Unlike caseload size, a s t a f f i n g r a t i o considers the portion of
time caseworkers devoted to CPS a c t i v i t i e s . The Statewide average was 17
cases per Fu I I - T i me Equ i va l en t ( FTE emp I oyee . When ana l yzed by
d i s t r i c t , some d i s t r i c t s appear to have high staffing ratios compared to
the statewide average and professional standards. Staffing ratios also
are higher in some d i s t r i c t s due to vacant caseworker positions. For
example, D i s t r i c t I1 FTEs had the largest number of cases with 21 cases
per FTE. However, i f a l l positions were f i l l e d , each FTE would have had
18 cases. The low ratio of 15 cases per FTE in D i s t r i c t V would have
dropped to 13 cases per FTE i f a l l vacancies were f i l l e d . This pattern
was also evident when analyzing ratios for each type of caseworker. Our
analysis suggests that high staffing ratios may be in part the result of
CPSf i n a b i l i t y to f i l l current positions and disparities i n s t a f f
allocations among d i s t r i c t s .
I f CPS were to investigate cases designated as " appropriate for
investigation but not investigated," the staffing ratios would increase
in D i s t r i c t s I, I I, and V I . D i s t r i c t I I would have the greatest increase
as each of i t s intake FTEs would have to investigate 5 additional cases.
I f a l l positions were f i l l e d , the increase would be 4 additional cases
per FTE .
Distribution Of Caseg
In The CPS Svstern ( see pages 27 through 30)
Our review of active ongoing cases found that no single type of abuse was
the predominant cause for cases entering the system. Allegations of
minor or potential abuse accounted for 21 percent of the cases. Another
19 percent of the cases ( 389) a1 leged parents had not provided the
necessities of l i f e or protection for their children. Three additional
categories encompassing severe to moderate physical or sexual abuse and
medical or physical neglect accounted for another 40 percent ( 835) of the
cases we reviewed.
Once a case is transferred to ongoing case management status, the case
plan becomes an indicator of work intensity. Of the ongoing cases we
reviewed, 33 percent ( 812) had a Remain with Family case plan, and 25
percent ( 614) had a case plan of Return to Family. The remaining 42
percent ( 1,026) cases had out- of- home case plans such as Adopt ion,
Long- Term Foster Care, or Placement with a Relative.
Conclusions And Recornrnendation~
( see pages 35 t h r w 37)
Our analysis indicates that several steps need to be taken to determine
appropriate long- term staffing levels. Three significant l imitations
prohibited us from more completely addressing our statutory charge to
estimate long- term staffing needs for - investigating al l appropriate
reports. F i r s t , data about the number of cases that were ," appropriate
for investigation but not investigated" could not be documented
completely. Second, CPS lacks precise information about the amount of
staff time actual ly spent providing chi Id protective services. Although
we were able to obtain some of this information for our analysis, this
information is based largely on estimates and required extensive time and
travel to collect. Third, we were unable to identify any widely accepted
c r i t e r i a for determining optimum staffing levels. Our survey of other
states revealed a wide variety of methods for estimating staffing needs.
To determine appropriate staffing levels, CPS must establish a management
information system that provides accurate and reliable information about
key a c t i v i t i e s . ( See Chapter V, pages 31 through 34 for a discussion* of
management informat ion.) In addition, workload standards are necessary.
Establishing standards w i l l require a joint e f f o r t between CPS and the
Legislature.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I : NUsER AH] TYPES
OF m E m s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Volume Of Reports
HandledByCPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TByypePsr iOof r iRteyp. o. rts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Types Of Reports By Nature Of Complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER I I : CASELOAD SIZE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case load Size By Full- Time Caseworker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case load Size By TypeOf Caseworker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fol low Up O f D i s t r i c t I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER I l l : STAFFING RATIOS IN CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staffing Ratios InOctober 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staffing Ratios In The Activity Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FTEs Added In Mar i copa County Affect Staffing Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staffing Ratios l f Investigations Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison With Professional Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( con ' t )
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table Of CPS Report Disposition
By General Characteristics
By D i s t r i c t
Table of CPS Report Disposition
By P r i o r i t y Level
By D i s t r i c t
APPENDIX II : Techn i ca l Append i x
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sampling Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Analysis
Number And
Type Of Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Caseload Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staffing Ratios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Length O f
TimeInSyst e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Response Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES
FlGlRE 1 Location Of ACYF Districts. . . . . .
FI- 2 Disposition Of CPS Reports
August 1, 1990 - January 31, 1991 . .
Pane
A- 1
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
TABLE 10
TABLE 11
TABLE 12
Number Of CPS Reports
Between August 1, 1990 And
January 31, 1991 And Their
Disposition By P r i o r i t y Level . . . .
Number Of CPS Reports
Between August 1, 1990 And
January 31, 1991 And Their
Disposition By General Characteristics Of Abuse . . . . . .
Average Case load Size Of
Full- Time Caseworkers In
October 1990 By The Number
Of Children By D i s t r i c t And Statewide
Average Caseload Size Statewide
In October 1990 By Type Of Worker And By D i s t r i c t . . . . . . . . . . .
Results Of Case Weighting By D i s t r i c t And Statewide. . . . . .
October 1990 Staffing Ratios For
Cases Of A l l Types
Per CPS- Related FTE Counts . . . . .
Comparison Of Staffing Ratios
Of Cases In Each Activity Area Per FTE
By D i s t r i c t And Statewide. . . . . .
D i s t r i c t I
Comparison Of Staffing Ratios In
October 1990 and February 1991 . . .
Comparison Of October 1990 Intake
Caseworker Staffing Ratios To
Ratios Based On An Increased
Investigation Rate . . . . . . . . .
Distribution Of Ongoing Cases Based
On The Most Serious Finding
l n i t iat ing Each Case . . . . . . . .
Distribution Of A l l Ongoing Cases
Reviewed In October 1990 By Case Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Length Of Time Needed To Close CPS Cases
For A Selected Sample Of
Closed Cases . . . . . . . . . . . .
LlST OF TABLES ( con't
TABLE 13 CDPeSs cPrripi otiroint ys ALnedv eRlse. s po. ns. e . Ti. me. s . Of. .
TABLE 14 CPS Report Disposition By General
Characteristics Of Abuse For
Each D i s t r i c t Between August 1, 1990
And January 31, 1991 . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 15 CPS Report Disposition By P r i o r i t y
Level For Each D i s t r i c t Between
August 1, 1990 And January 31, 1991
TABLE 16 Description Of Allegations And
Response Times Of CPS By
P r i o r i t y Levels And Characteristics
TABLE 17 Abuse Type And Correspond i ng
Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . .
LlST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A Calculations Of CPS Caseworker Time By Activity . . . . . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT B Points Assigned TO
Survey Case Plans. . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a special analysis of the
workload of Child Protective Services within the Department of Economic
Secur i ty ( DES). This study was conducted in response to Session Laws
1990, Chapter 237, Section 21.
This report presents specific information requested by the Arizona State
Legislature and includes the number and types of reports received,
caseload size, caseload mix, and staffing ratios. The report also
presents other information not specifically requested but closely related
to the questions raised by Chapter 237.
Proclrarn Oraanization
And Functions
Chi Id Protective Services ( CPS) is a function of the DES Administration
for Children, Youth and Families ( ACYF). ACYF is responsible for
protecting children from several types of abuse, including emotional,
physical, and sexual abuse, and neglect. CPS staff throughout the State
receive reports of alleged abuse from a variety of sources: family
members, school o f f i c i a l s , law enforcement o f f i c i a l s , and others who may
suspect child abuse. According to ACYF records, CPS received more than
37,928 reports and investigated 20,028 reports during fiscal year 1990.
When an incident of abuse or neglect is reported, CPS staff screen ihe
report to determine i f i t is within their jurisdiction. I f so, the
report i s ranked for investigation according to i t s potential
seriousness. For example, in l i fe- threatening or emergency situations,
such as the death of a child or severe physical abuse, an investigation
must be initiated within 2 hours of the report. Reports that involve
less serious abuses that can become damaging, such as substandard care,
must be investigated within 1 week of the report. A CPS investigator
then determines the v a l i d i t y of the allegations and recommends
appropriate action. Such action may involve removing the child from the
home or i n i t i a t i n g services for the family.
Many of the reports received by CPS are closed within a few weeks of the
i n i t i a l report, and no further action is needed. However, cases that
cannot be resolved quickly are transferred to ongoing status for longer
term management. Ongoing cases are managed on the basis of case plans
that project a desired outcome. Typical case plans include remaining
with the family, returning to the family, adoption, long- term foster
care, and placement with a relative. CPS staff provide services to the
child, his or her natural family, and foster family or guardians that are
consistent with the objectives of the ongoing case plan. CPS reports
that, on average, i t managed more than 4,000 ongoing cases monthly during
fiscal year 1990.
Purpose Of
Auditor General Study
The Joint Legislative Oversight Comnittee on Child Protective Services
recomnended that the Auditor General conduct an audit of CPS staff
caseload size. The Oversight Comnittee on Child Protective Services was
established in August 1989 in response to a rapid increase in the number
of reports of child abuse and numerous concerns voiced by the public,
DES, and legislators regarding Arizona's child protective service
system. The Comnittee held several public hearings and met with DES
administrators to discuss these concerns.
One concern presented was that because of a significant increase in the
number of reports, CPS has been unable to investigate 100 percent of the
calls deemed appropriate for investigation. DES proposed a plan that
included a request for additional funding to hire more caseworkers to
achieve a 100 percent investigation rate. However, DES has been unable
to provide the Comnittee with caseload numbers and other v i t a l
s t a t i s t i c a l information. According to legislative s t a f f , timely
information about caseload size was d i f f i c u l t to obtain because CPS does
not have a computerized system for tracking the number of cases and
caseloads. Also, policies and procedures are not interpreted and applied
consistently from o f f i c e to office.
Although the Conrnittee agreed with the goal of achieving a 100 percent
rate of investigation for appropriate reports, without adequate
information they were unable to determine the amount of funding necessary
to reach this objective. In an e f f o r t to obtain information about
caseload size, the Committee recommended that the Auditor General conduct
an audit of CPS caseloads. This recommendation was incorporated into
House B i l l 2690, the Omnibus Child Protection Act, which passed in 1990.
Study SCwQ
And Methodology
The scope of our study is defined by Session Laws 1990, Chapter 237,
Section 21:
The auditor general shall conduct an audit of the number and type of
reports, case load size, case load mix and staffing ratios to ensure
that the department of economic security has sufficient staff to
investigate a l l appropriate referrals to child. protective services ....
The primary methodology for this study was a review of CPS case f i l e s .
We selected a s t a t i s t i c a l sample of 236 caseworkers Statewide and
reviewed cases that were open at any time during October 1990. We
reviewed case f i l e s at local offices in every d i s t r i c t . ( Figure 1, page
4, shows the locations of the six ACYF d i s t r i c t s . ) Our methodology
provided information on the number and type of reports, case load size,
case load mix and staffing ratios. Because of data limitations and the
lack of clear c r i t e r i a , we were unable to determine completely the number
of staff needed to ensure that a l l appropriate referrals are
investigated. These limitations are discussed more f u l l y on page 36.
FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF ACYF DISTRICTS
MWO
MACHE
~~ K
R JOHFS
f
ARIZONA
Because a significant number of new CPS staff were being hired in
D i s t r i c t I during the period of our review, we conducted a limited
follow- up review of February 1991 caseloads in that d i s t r i c t . The
information obtained from this follow- up review provides an i n i t i a l
indicator of the impact of new funding provided in fiscal year 1990- 91 on
CPS caseload size.
Finally, because the amount of time and e f f o r t required for each case
varies, we weighted a l l types of cases in order to compare workloads
among caseworkers and the d i s t r i c t s .
More detailed information about the methodology used in our study is
included in the Technical Appendix of this report.
The Auditor General and ' staff express appreciation to the Director and
staff of the Department of Economic Security for their cooperation and
assistance during this study.
CHAPTER I
NUMBER AND TYPES OF CPS REPORTS
Each month CPS handles thousands of reports of alleged child abuse or
neglect. To determine the number and types of these reports, we analyzed
the data in three ways: the number of reports that are investigated or
not investigated, the number of reports by p r i o r i t y , and the number of
reports by the type of complaint.
We obtained information about the number and type of reports from the
Child Protective Services Central Registry ( CPSCR). A l l reports of abuse
and neglect dating back to December 1985 are captured in thi. s automated
database. The Registry records the disposition of a l l reports and the
findings of resulting investigations. CPS classifies a l l allegations
into one of 23 types of abuse or neglect. ( For a complete l i s t i n g of
these categories, see Table 16 on page A- 10 of the Technical Appendix .)
Volume Of Reoorts
Handled Bv CPS
In the 6 months between August 1, 1990 and January 31, 1991, CPS received
18,113 reports of child abuse or neglect involving 30,804 children. The
18,113 reports do not correlate directly to 18,113 occurrences of child
abuse. Multiple reports may be made by different sources or even the
same source about one incident of abuse. For example, both the
physician and law enforcement o f f i c i a l s involved in a case may each f i l e
a report. According to CPS s t a f f , the reports range from valid l i f e
threats to false statements made by angry spouses involved in custody
battles.
Disposition of reoortg - Figure 2 ( page 8) i l lustrates the dispositions
of the 18,113 reports. Of the total number of reports, 52 percent were
investigated. Another 7 percent were considered appropriate for
investigation but, according to CPS s t a f f , were not assigned due to
concerns about the workload of investigative s t a f f . Disposition could
not be determined on 2 percent of the reports because a decision to
investigate had not been made or the information had not been entered on
the Central Registry. The remaining 39 percent of the reports were
deemed to be " information only."
REPORTS
APPROPRIATE F
INVESTIGATION
BUT NOT
1 NVESTIGATED
1270 or 7%
FIGURE 2
DISPOSITION OF CPS REPORTS
AUGUST 1,1990 - JANUARY 31, 1991
: A o /' REPORTS RECORDED \
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
7099 or 39%
REPORTS INVESTIGATED
9384 or 52%
REPORTS NOT
DISPOSED
360 or 2%
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of Child
Protective Services Central Registry monthly reports for August
1, 1990 through January 31, 1991.
CPS staff consider a report to be " information onlyn for several
reasons. Some reports can be handled by the police without CPS
involvement, and others do not require CPS investigation. For example,
cases involving runaways or those involving sexual abuse where the
perpetrator is outside the home ( and therefore not an immediate,
recurrent danger to the chi Id) are routinely designated as " information
only." Other reports are considered " information onlyt1 because CPS lacks
sufficient information to locate the family or pursue an investigation.
However, some cases classified as " information onlyw may be appropriate
for investigation. Several supervisors noted that they designate some
cases as " information only" rather than " appropriate for investigation
but not investigated" because they do not have enough staff to
investigate these reports. Because CPS supervisors typically do not
document their reasons for categorizing reports as " information only," we
were unable to determine the extent of this practice. Nevertheless,
inappropriately recording reports as " information only" instead of
" appropriate for investigation but not investigated" reduces the accuracy
of information needed to make service level and staffing decisions.
Remrts investigated - CPS has determined that at least one- third of the
reports received by February 1991 and investigated during t h i s f i s c a l
year are valid.(') This signifies that CPS found some type of abuse or
neglect in the home, although not necessarily the particular type alleged
in the report. Another 35 percent of the investigated reports were found
to be invalid or undetermined ( evidence was inconclusive to confirm or
refute the allegation). As of April 1991, the Central Registry contained
no information regarding investigative findings for the remaining nearly
one- third of reports.
Iyges Of Reports
Bv Priority
The 18,113 reports that CPS received from August 1, 1990 through
January 31, 1991, represent a wide range of allegations and associated
p r i o r i t y levels. CPS categorizes the twenty- three types of allegations
into four p r i o r i t y levels:
Priority One - life- threatening and/ or emergency situation
Priority Two - dangerous but not life- threatening
Priority Three - substandard care that is damaging
Priority Four - substandard care that cou Id become damaging
( 1 ) To obtain the most complete infonnation available about investigative findings, we
referred t o a f i s c a l year- to- date sumnary report rather than our six- month review of
monthly reports. However, this sumnary informati on i s s t i l l incomplete due to
untimely data entry. Thirty- two percent of the investigated reports did not have
investigative findings recorded.
Table 1 shows the distribution of these reports among the four p r i o r i t y
levels. I n t h i s table, placement in a p r i o r i t y level is determined by
the degree of seriousness of the allegation about any of the children
involved. ( For a similar analysis by d i s t r i c t , see d i s t r i c t totals in
Appendix I, page A- 3.) As expected, generally the higher the p r i o r i t y
level, the greater the proportion of cases investigated.
TABLE 1
NUMBER OF CPS REPORTS
BETWEEN AUGUST 1, 1990 AND JANUARY 31, 1991
AND THEIR DISPOSITION BY PRIORITY LEVEL
P r i o r i t y I nves- Info Not'lnves- Not Dis-
Leve l R e m r t d tigated t iqated( a) ~ osedb()
4 lL!% i 3,853 4.419 724
A l l P r i o r i t i e s 18.113 9.384 7.099 1 ,270
( a) Because t h i s infonnation was derived from composite information, we did not i d e n t i f y
the specific reports and the reasons they were not investigated. However, we spoke
with supervisors t o determine why reports, p a r t i c u l a r l y hi gh- pri o r i t y cases, may be
designated as appropriate f o r investigation but then not investigated. One example
c i t e d was that subsequent infonnation may become avai 1 able that would eliminate the
need f o r an investigation.
( b) Disposition i n f o n a t i o n about these reports i s not available on the Registry. Either
the supervisor had not made the decision to investigate the report or that decision
was not entered i n t o the Registry i n a timely manner.
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of Child
Protective Services Central Registry monthly reports for
August 1, 1990 through January 31, 1991.
Of Reoort~
Bv Nature Of Corn~ laint
Another way to view this information is to categorize reports according
to the general characteristics of the alleged abuse or neglect. Auditors
grouped cases with simi lar characteristics from the four p r i o r i t y
levels. For example, a l l three p r i o r i t y levels of physical abuse were
grouped together under the heading of " physical abuse." Table 2
indicates that the largest category ( 47 percent) of reports is " potential
or minor abuselneglect allegation^.^^ The next largest category ( 14
percent) of reports is " allegations of sexual abuse." ( For an analysis
by d i s t r i c t , see Appendix I, page A- 1 through A- 2.)
TABLE 2
NUMBER OF CPS REPORTS ~
BETWEEN AUGUST 1, 1990 AND JANUARY' 31, 1991
AND THEIR DISPOSITION
BY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ABUSE
Type of
Abuse
Inves- Info Not Inves- Not Dis-
Report4 tiaated Onlv t iaated posed( a)
Death of a Child
Dependent Chi l d( b)
Emo t i ona l Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Physical Abuse,
Severe to Moderate
Potential or Minor
Abuse/ Neglect
Neglect,
Severe to Moderate
Sexual Abuse
Other
A l l Types
( a) I n 2 percent o f the reports entered on the CPSCR i n t h i s timeframe, either the
supervisor had not made a decision about whether or not to investigate the reports,
or the decisions were not entered on the CPSCR i n a timely manner.
( b) Dependent children are those whose parents do not assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of
providing the necessities of l i f e or protection f o r t h e i r children because the
parents are unwilling, unable, or incapable due to dysfunctional problems.
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of Chi Id
Protective Services Central Registry monthly reports for August
1, 1990 through January 31, 1991.
CHAPTER II
CASELOAD SIZE
Session Laws 1990, Chapter 237, Section 21 directed the Auditor General
to determine the caseload size for CPS caseworkers. For purposes of this
study, the size of the caseload refers to the total number of cases
actual ly managed by a caseworker for a given time frame. The size of a
caseload was determined in three ways: average caseload for full- time
caseworkers, average caseload by type of caseworker and weighted
caseloads, which reflect the degree of d i f f i c u l t y of the various types of
cases.
Caseload Size By
Full- Time Caseworker
To determine the average caseload size for full- time caseworkers, we
identified the caseworkers(') in our sample that perform CPS casework
a c t i v i t i e s on a full- time basis. In our sample there were a total of 201
caseworkers Statewide that perform intake and/ or ongoing case management
a c t i v i t i e s full- time, including 19 contract workers. ( For a discussion
of the methodology applied, see page A- 11 of the Technical Appendix.) As
i l l u s t r a t e d in Table 3, page 14, the size of the average caseload varies
by d i s t r i c t . D i s t r i c t II has the highest average caseload of 19 cases
per caseworker. D i s t r i c t s I l l and V have the lowest average caseload of
15 cases per caseworker. Although the average caseload Statewide is 17,
23 caseworkers managed 25 or more cases, and two managed 40 cases.
( 1) Contract caseworkers were counted i n the same manner as ACYF employees. Therefore,
the information reported includes contract caseworkers' caseloads.
TABLE 3
AVERAGE CASELOAD SIZE OF FULL- TIME CASEWORKERS
IN OCTOBER 1- BY THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN
PER CASELOAD BY DlSTRlCT AND STATEWIDE
Locat ion
D i s t r i c t I
I I
I I I
I v
v
v I
Average Number
Average of Chi ldren Per
I; aseload Size Case l oad
Statewide 17 3 7
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of October 1990
sample of CPS caseworkers.
A second factor to consider in reviewing caseload size is the number of
children served. The average number of children served Statewide per
full- time caseworker is 37. As illustrated in Table 3, the average total
number of children per caseload varies by d i s t r i c t . D i s t r i c t II, with 42
children per caseload, served the highest average number of children.
D i s t r i c t IV, with 31 children per caseload, served the lowest average
number of children. Some caseworkers managed an excessively large number
of children on their October 1990 caseloads when compared to the average:
32 had caseloads of 50 to 74 children,
six had caseloads of 75 to 99 children, and
one had a caseload of 102 children.
Caseload Size By
lype Of Caseworker
Because an overall average of full- time caseworkers does not provide
information by type of caseworker and does not include caseworkers that
perform CPS duties part time, we performed an analysis by type of
caseworker. We defined four types of caseworkers: intake, ongoing,
mixed ( those that perform both intake and ongoing case a c t i v i t i e s ) , and
other mix ( those that may perform intake, ongoing, or both a c t i v i t i e s in
addition to other ACYF duties such as day care licensing).(') Our sample
of 236 caseworkers includes 53 intake only caseworkers, 106 ongoing only
caseworkers, 44 mixed caseworkers and 33 other mix caseworkers. Table 4
presents the average caseload size by type of caseworker.
TABLE 4
AVERAGE CASELOAD SlZE STATEWIDE IN OCTOBER 1990
BY TYPE OF WORKER AND BY DISTRICT
T v ~ eo f Worker
lntake Only
Ongoing Only
Mi xed
lntake Cases
Ongoing Cases
Other Mix
lntake Cases
Ongoing Cases
Averaae Case load Si ze( a)
D i s t r i c t
Statewide - I - I I - 1 1 1 I V ! L - V I
( a) Blanks appear i n Table 4 because averages cannot be determined f o r a l l categories
f o r the f 01 1 owing reasons :
There were no caseworkers drawn i n our sample from the d i s t r i c t f o r t h i s
p a r t i c u l a r category.
There was an i n s u f f i c i e n t number of caseworkers i n our sample to make
generalizations at the d i s t r i c t level .
Furthennore, a Statewide average of intake cases managed by other mix caseworkers i s
misleading because most of these cases are managed by D i s t r i c t V I other mix
caseworkers. Therefore, we do not report an average f o r t h i s category.
( b) Other mix caseworkers i n D i s t r i c t I1 had higher caseloads than caseworkers i n
D i s t r i c t s 111, IV and VI, thereby producing an average caseload Statewide of 10
cases.
Source: Office of the Auditor General, s t a f f analysis of October 1990
sample of CPS caseworkers.
( 1) I n the rural d i s t r i c t s , caseworkers with intake r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may also be
required t o be on- call f o r n i g h t or weekend emergencies.
Follow Up
Of District I-Because
a significant number of new caseworkers were being hired in
D i s t r i c t I during the period of our review, we conducted a limited
follow- up review of February 1991 caseloads in that d i s t r i c t . The
addition of new caseworker positions i n D i s t r i c t I lowered caseload
size. The results of the February 1991 analysis showed that the average
size of a caseload decreased by 3 cases per caseworker:
Intake Caseworker - 17 cases in October 1990 decreased to 14 cases in
February 1991
Onaoina Caseworker - 18 cases in October 1990 decreased to 15 cases in
February 1991
Although hiring additional caseworkers has i n i t i a l l y reduced caseloads,
ACYF administrators anticipate that caseloads may increase. According to
ACYF administrators, hiring additional caseworkers w i l l allow them to
investigate cases that are currently not being investigated due to a lack
of sufficient s t a f f .
Case Weiahtinq
Because caseload averages alone do not provide a complete picture of CPS
workload, we included a case weighting component in our analysis. Many
factors influence the amount of time required to manage a case.
Recognizing these factors and incorporating them in a case weighting
model allows us to assess the relative amount of time or work each
caseworker's caseload requires. Applying the model to the October 1990
caseworker sample, we determined that 19 percent of the caseworkers
exceeded the model's maximum caseload standard.
Several factors may contribute to making one case more d i f f i c u l t to
manage than another case. For example, one case may consist of only one
chi Id, whi le another case may consist of several chi ldren. Furthermore,
cases involving the courts reportedly require more time than those that
do not involve the courts because of required court appearances,
additional parties to coordinate with, and required paperwork.
Therefore, two caseworkers with the same size caseload may have a
considerably different workload.
To ascertain how these factors influence workload, we applied the case
weighting method used by New Mexico's Human Services Department, Social
Services Division.(') ( For a detailed discussion of the New Mexico
model, why i t was selected, and how i t was applied to Arizona caseloads,
see Technical Appendix, page A- 16.) Using the New Mexico model we
analyzed case plans and determined a rank order based on the amount of
time one type of plan required compared to a Return Home case plan
( determined to be the most time- intensive case plan). Each case plan was
assigned a point value based on i t s ranking. The point values for a l l
case plans were totaled for individual caseloads to determine a weighted
case load .
New Mexico also established a maximum point value of 2,000 points per
caseload. By applying the point values to individual caseloads, New
Mex i co can de t e rm i ne wh i ch caseworkers have excess i ve case loads based on
the amount of time their respective cases require.
When modified to reflect Arizona caseworker opinions and CPS case plans,
19 percent of the caseworkers exceeded the 2,000 maximum point value
established by New Mexico. Using the 2,000 point cap, Table 5 shows that
44 caseworkers had workloads exceeding 2,000 points in October 1990. The
majority of these caseworkers are in D i s t r i c t s 1 ( 15 caseworkers) and I1
( 15 caseworkers) . F i ve caseworkers had work loads that exceeded 3,000
points. Caseworkers exceeding the cap have an unusually high number of
cases, a high number of the most time- intensive cases, or both.
( 1) Although we found the New Mexico model a useful tool to assess workload, we are not
reconrnending that Arizona adopt this method without further study. CPS administrators
feel that the model needs to incorporate additional factors to better accomnodate
Ari zona condi tions and the CPS system.
TABLE 5
RESULTS OF CASE WEIGHTING BY DISTRICT AND STATEWIDE
Number of CPS Caseworkers Meeting Percentaae of Maximum Standard
Less than More than
D i s t r i c t 50X 5 0 - 7 4 1 75- 89% 90- 100% 100%
Statewide
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of October 1990
sample of CPS caseworkers and the application of the New Mexico
case weighting model.
New Mexico staff note that their goal is to keep caseloads below the
2,000 point cap rather than having every caseworker at the maximum point
value. Because of this, they expect to have the majority of their
caseworkers in the 50 to 90 percent range. A New Mexico CPS
administrator reports that their average weighted caseload is 14 cases
per caseworker. The average weighted caseload would therefore not exceed
1,400 points or 70 percent of the cap. They also expect that there w i l l
be some caseworkers with point values below 50 percent of the cap. New
caseworkers with fewer and less d i f f i c u l t cases would l i k e l y be in this
category. Table 5 indicates that a l l Arizona d i s t r i c t s might be able to
increase some caseworkers1 workloads to help reduce the excessive
workloads of others.
CHAPTER Ill
STAFFING RATIOS IN CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
In addition to a review of the average size of CPS caseloads, Chapter 237
required that we review staffing ratios. Unlike caseload size, a
staffing ratio considers the portion of time caseworkers devote to CPS
a c t i v i t i e s . ( ' ) For a l l Full- Time Equivalent ( FTE) caseworkers in our
sample, we calculated two sets of staffing ratios. The f i r s t set of
ratios is based on the positions actually funded, including contract
caseworkers and vacancies. The second set of ratios is based on the
positions that are actually f i l l e d '( including contract s t a f f ) and
excludes vacant positions. We also calculated the same two sets of
ratios for the subgroups of intake and ongoing FTE caseworkers. An
additional analysis determines what staffing ratios would be i f CPS
intake caseworkers were to investigate a l l cases classified as
" appropriate for investigation." Finally, we compared the October 1990
ratios to professional standards.
Our staffing ratio analysis is based upon a s t a t i s t i c a l sample of a l l
caseworkers in the State, including vacant positions.( 2) As a whole, the
caseworkers selected managed 3,904 cases in October 1990. We obtained a
staffing ratio by comparing those 3,904 cases to the number of FTEs.
Because many CPS caseworkers per form both i n t ake and ongo i ng act i v i t i es
or, in same cases, additional non- CPS duties, caseworkers were poll'ed
( 1) To develop meaningful data on actual average caseload sizes, we subdivided caseworkers
i n t o groups by type of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ( intake, ongoing, mixed, and other mix). Our
analysis of s t a f f i n g r a t i o s then factors the time any caseworker spends i n either
intake or ongoing a c t i v i t i e s and includes that time i n an aggregate intake FTE count
and an aggregate ongoing FTE count.
( 2) For purposes o f t h i s review, contract caseworkers are included. These s t a f f are not
d i r e c t l y funded positions and, therefore, are not considered FTEs i n the conventional
sense. However, contract caseworkers provide a considerable portion of case
management services and must be included to give a complete picture of s t a f f i n g .
Contracted caseworkers are funded from the ACYF Children Services special l i n e item
appropriation, and used i n a l l d i s t r i c t s except D i s t r i c t I.
individual ly to determine how they spent their time. This informat ion
provided an estimate of the percentage of time caseworkers spent on CPS
services in each a c t i v i t y area. ( For a more detai led description of the
methodology, see the Technical Appendix, page A- 12.)
The October 1990 sample included 236 caseworkers with a caseload, 18
vacancies, and four new hires with no caseload. While this constitutes
258 positions, due to part- time positions and positions that entail
responsibilities outside CPS case management, these positions equate to
only 244 FTEs performing CPS functions. Of the 244 FTEs in our sample,
contract staff account for 28 FTEs. 0
Staffina Ratios
In October 199Q
The Statewide average number of cases per f i l led FTE was 17 in October
1990. I f CPS were f u l l y staffed, including contract caseworkers, the
staffing r a t i o would decrease to 16 cases per FTE. Table 6 indicates
that staffing ratios at the d i s t r i c t level, including intake and ongoing
cases, range from a low of 13 cases per funded FTE to a high of 18 cases
per funded FTE. The staffing ratio of cases per FTE f i l l e d with a
caseworker ready to manage cases is higher than the ratio of funded FTEs
in a1 I d i s t r i c t s except ~ i s t r i c tI V .
D i s t r i c t
TABLE 6
OCTOBER 1990 STAFFING RATIOS FOR
CASES OF ALL TYPES
PER CPS- RELATED FTE COUNTS
Cases Per Funded Cases Per F i l l e d
FTE FTE
Statewide 16 17
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of CPS staffing
patterns and caseioads based on the October 1990 sample of
caseworkers .
Staffina Ratiq~
In The Activitv Area?
While the number of cases per FTE in general terms is important, the
staffing ratios for intake and ongoing functions are more meaningful for
comparison against professional standards. Because many caseworkers
outside the larger metropolitan regions of the State perform both intake
investigations and ongoing case management services, those FTEs s p l i t
their time and, therefore, a portion of their time is counted in each
a c t i v i t y area.
Our analysis shows that Statewide in October 1990 each f i l l e d FTE
hand l i ng i n take cases managed 17 cases and each f i l I ed FTE hand I i ng
ongoing cases managed 18 cases. I f CPS were f u l l y staffed, the staffing
ratios would decrease to 16 cases for both types of FTE. Table 7
i l l u s t r a t e s the variances between the funded FTEs and those FTEs that are
actually f i lied with caseworkers ready to manage cases. FTEs managing
intake cases in D i s t r i c t V manage an additional 5 cases because of
vacancies. FTEs managing ongoing cases i n D i s t r i c t I I manage 4
additional cases because of vacancies. These differences suggest that in
some d i s t r i c t s improved recruitment and retention might be used in lieu
of additional positions to lower the ratio of cases per FTE. For
example, we found that there were sufficient positions in D i s t r i c t I to
operate at 16 cases for each FTE managing ongoing cases. However, in
October 1990, due to vacancies and new hires without caseloads, FTEs
hand I i ng ongoing cases managed 18 cases. The agency's goal of 17 cases
per ongoing FTE would have been met i f D i s t r i c t I had fewer vacancies.(')*
( 1) We did not compare agency goals and the calculated staffing ratios for intake FTEs
because the agency goal i s based on cases per intake caseworker per month, and the
sample analysis was based on the Jotal number of cases per intake caseworker per
month. Therefore, a direct comparison could not be made.
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF STAFFING RATIOS OF CASES IN EACH
ACTIVITY AREA PER FTE BY DISTRICT AND STATEWIDE
Intake Cases Ongo i na Cases
Per Funded Per Fi l led Per Funded Per Fi l led
D i s t r i c t I n t ake FTE Intake FTE Onaoina FTE Onsoina FTE
Statewide 16 17 16 18
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of CPS staffing
patterns and caseloads based on the October 1990 sample of
caseworkers.
FTEs Added In Marima County
Affect Staffina Rati-
Additional caseworker positions in D i s t r i c t I have changed the staffing
ratios for that d i s t r i c t . We realized that October ratios in Maricopa
County would be changing due to the addition of 38 caseworker positions
funded for fiscal year 1991. By October 1990 these FTEs were only
beginning to be phased in. To obtain a more up- to- date picture, we
calculated the staffing ratios for D i s t r i c t I based on February 1991
caseloads and s t a f f . The number of cases dropped to 13 per funded FTE.
( For a comparison between the October 1990 and February 1991 ratios for
D i s t r i c t I, see Table 8, page 23.)
TABLE 8
DISTRICT I
COMPARISON OF STAFFING RATIOS IN
OCTOBER 1990 AND FEBRUARY 1991
Cases Per Funded FTE Cases Per F i l l e d FTE
October 1990 February 1991 October 1990 February 1991
A l l cases 16 13
Ongo i ng cases 16 14
Intake cases 16 13
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff review of cases and
staffing patterns based on the October 1990 and February 1991
caseworker sample for D i s t r i c t I.
Although additional positions have i n i t i a l l y reduced staffing ratios,
ACYF administrators, anticipate ratios may increase. According to ACYF
administrators, additional caseworkers w i l l allow them to investigate
reports that are currently not being investigated due to the lack of
sufficient s t a f f .
Staffina Ratios If
lnvestiaations Increasecj
As noted in Chapter I, CPS does not investigate 100 percent of the
reports i t s caseworkers consider appropriate for investigation. I f CPS
were to investigate those cases currently designated as " appropriate for
investigation but not investigated," the October 1990 staffing ratios
would increase.(') Table 9 ( see page 24) indicates that the number of
cases per FTE would increase in D i s t r i c t s I, II, and V I . The number of
cases per FTE would increase the most in D i s t r i c t l i . Each intake FTE
( 1) Because we suspect not a l l cases appropriate f o r investigation are being c l a s s i f i e d as
such, t h i s analysis provides a minimum expected increase. As noted i n Chapter I,
interviews with u n i t supervisors indicated that some supervisors c l a s s i f y cases as
" information on1 y" rather than " appropriate f o r investigation but not investigated."
The analysis presented i n Table 9 and discussed i n t h i s section i s based only on the
number of cases that are s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d by supervisors as " appropriate f o r
investigation but not investigated."
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF OCTOBER 1990 INTAKE CASEWORKER
STAFFING RATIOS TO RATIOS BASED ON AN
INCREASED INVESTIGATION RATE
Intake Cases Per Funded FTE Intake Cases Per Fi l led FTE
D i s t r i c t Qctober 199Q Increased Rate October 1990 Increased Rate
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis based on October
1990 staffing patterns and caseloads.
would have to investigate an additional 5 cases; i f completely staffed,
the increase would be 4 additional cases per FTE.
Com~ arison With
Professional Standards
To determine i f Arizona CPS staffing ratios are comparable to those in
other states and professional standards, we surveyed several states and
reviewed the Child Welfare League of America ( CWLA) standards. However,
we were unable to develop meaningful comparisons between Arizona CPS
staffing ratios and those of other states because of varying operationil
methods and recordkeeping systems. Therefore, we were limited to a
compa r i son to CWLA standards .
We selected 16 states(') for our survey because of their location ( the
western/ southwestern United States), because their client populations are
similar in number to those in Arizona, or because these states have been
( 1) The 16 states surveyed were California, Colorado. Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana.
Maryland. Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, and Washington.
cited as having good CPS programs. Interviews with CPS staff in these
states indicated that comparisons would be d i f f i c u l t to make. The
following includes a few of the reasons inhibiting program comparison:
CaseDefinition - Arizona generally defines a case in terms of the
family unit. However, adoption cases and some independent living
cases are generally defined in terms of the individual child. In
comparison, eight of the states surveyed define a case in terms of
the family and three states define a case in terms of the child.
Five states define a case in terms of both methods. For example, in
Utah cases are considered in terms of the family when investigated,
but i f the allegation is substantiated, the case is then defined in
terms of the chi Id. In Washington State cases are also defined in
terms of the child i f the child is in an out of home placement but
in terms of the family i f the child remains at home.
Unit of Measurement for Standards - Ar i zona standards are measured
by the number of cases per intake or ongoing caseworker. Ten states
also measure standard,^ using the number of cases per caseworker.
However, the recommended standard number of cases varies
considerably among states. For example, Kentucky has a standard of
25 cases per caseworker regardless of a c t i v i t y . California has four
different caseload standards, each based on the type of case. Two
states have a point value/ case weighting standard, two measure
standards by the number of hours and type of a c t i v i t y , and two
reported having no standards.
8 Caseloads bv Type of Caseworker - Because we wanted to compare
Arizona caseloads for intake, ongoing, mixed, and other mix
caseworkers, we requested caseload information for these types of
caseworkers. Only four states were able to provide this
information, and three offered estimates. The remaining states did
not have this information readily available or were unable to
prepare i t . In addition, three states have county- based CPS
programs and do not maintain staffing and caseload information at a
statewide level.
Because we were unable to make meaningful comparisons among states, for
comparative purposes, we were limited to using the standards recommended
by CWLA. The CWLA recomnends a standard of 12 intake investigations per
caseworker per month. Based on the October 1990 staffing ratios, a l l
d i s t r i c t s would have exceeded this intake standard even i f CPS had been
completely staffed ( see Table 7, page 22). When vacancies are factored
into the staffing ratio, some d i s t r i c t s exceeded the standard by several
cases. D i s t r i c t V intake FTEs managed twice as many cases as the
recomnended CWLA standard.
Comparing Arizona CPS staffing ratios against the CWLA standard for
ongoing FTEs, it appears that most d i s t r i c t s have sufficient positions to
meet the standard. CWLA recomnends 17 active cases per month per ongoing
caseworker. With no vacancies CPS meets this standard in a l l d i s t r i c t s
but D i s t r i c t I I . Considering vacant positions, D i s t r i c t I exceeded the
standard by 1 case per FTE in October 1990, and D i s t r i c t I I exceeded the
standard by 8 cases.
CHAPTER IV
THE DISTRIBUTION OF CASES IN THE CPS SYSTEM
Session Laws 1990, Chapter 237, Section 21 directed the Auditor General
to review the mix of CPS cases. To e f f e c t i v e l y characterize how the
system works, t h i s review provides the following descriptive analyses of
active cases:
A proportional breakout of the number o f active intake and ongoing
cases each month
An analysis of the investigative findings that brought cases into
ongoing case management services
An analysis of the October 1990 case plan goals for active ongoing
cases
Although our sample of cases active in October 1990 i s not a s t a t i s t i c a l
sample, i t does constitute over one- half of the 6,907 cases that ACYF
estimates were active during that month.
P r m r t i o n Of Intake
A- KJ
Approximately two- thirds of the cases active in October 1990 that we
reviewed were ongoing cases, and approximately one- third of these cases
were intake investigations. Although our analyses reviewed active cases
f o r only one month, ACYF information indicates a monthly volume of CPS
cases with the r a t i o of two active ongoing cases to one intake
investigation. It i s important to note that while the ongoing cases are
primarily the same cases that remain active from month to month, the
majority of the intake investigative cases each month are new. Hence,
annually more investigations are handled than ongoing cases. ACYF
estimates that 20 percent of a l l reports investigated advance to ongoing
case status.
Finding Of lnvestiaationg
Resultina In Onaoina Caseg
A broad range of investigative findings(') can i n i t i a t e an ongoing case.
No single investigative finding was found to be the reason precipitating
the majority of the ongoing cases we reviewed. Although minor or
potential abuse or neglect and dependent(*) children were the cause of
more ongoing cases than the other categories, findings were distributed
f a i r l y evenly among categories of abuse. Table 10 shows the distribution
of ongoing cases based on the most serious i n i t i a l finding in each case.
TABLE 10
DISTRIBUTION OF ONGOING CASES BASED ON THE
MOST SERIOUS FINDING INITIATING EACH CASE
Findina l n i t i a t i n a Casg
Minor or Potential Abuse/ Neglect
Dependent Ch i l d
Physical Abuse, Severe to Moderate
Sexual Abuse, Severe to Moderate
Medical or Physical Neglect, Severe to Moderate
Lack of Supervision
Undetermined or Invalid Findings
Emotional Abuse
Other
Death of a Child
A l l Cases Reviewed
Number of Percentage
Onqoina Cases of Total
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff f i l e review of CPS cases:
As Table 10 i l l u s t r a t e s , some cases with undetermined or invalid
investigative findings are transferred to . ongoing status. A caseworker
involved with these families may be aware of potential problems that
preventive services might address or that may need to be monitored even
though the alleged abuse or neglect is not apparent at the time of the
investigation. According to one caseworker, this is often true with
( 1) This analysis i s based on the most serious finding o f abuse or neglect against any of
the children involved. Although multiple abuses on multiple children may have been
documented, the case i s grouped by the most serious finding on that report.
( 2) Dependent children are those whose parents do not assume the responsibility of
providing the necessities of l i f e or protection for their children because the parents
are unwi 11 ing, unable, or incapable due to dysfunctional problems.
al legat ions of physical neglect. The consequences of neglect may not be
physically evident u n t i l the situation has become serious enough for the
chi Id to be diagnosed medically as " Failure to Thrive". Parenting ski l Is
training or other services may be offered on a voluntary basis. I f the
family accepts those services, the case i s transferred to ongoing status.
Case Plan Goals
Of Onaoina Cases
According to the ACYF Program Administrator, once a case in transferred
to ongoing case management status, the importance of p r i o r i t y codes
decreases. For ongoing cases, the case plan is a better indicator of the
type of case and what services may be required. Therefore, the case plan
can be used as an indicator of work intensity.(')
We documented case plan goals of over one- half the ongoing cases CPS
estimates were active in October 1990. ( For a description of the case
p Ian goals , see page A- 15 of the Techn i ca l Append i x . ) A l though a case
may involve multiple children w i t h d i f f e r e n t case plans, each c h i l d has
only one case p Ian. Of the 2,452 cases we reviewed , 205 had more than
one case plan, but for the purpose of obtaining a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
cases are grouped by the most time- intensive case plan for the caseworker
as determined by our Statewide survey of caseworker^.(^) ( For a
discussion of the Statewide survey and the results, see the Technical
Appendix, pages A- 18 through A- 20.) In a hypothetical case example
involving two children relinquished by their natural mother, each c h i l d
has a d i f f e r e n t case plan goal. Each chi Id also has a d i f f e r e n t fathe'r.
One c h i l d has a father who wishes to work for the return o f h i s c h i l d to
him. The other c h i l d i s to be placed in an adoptive home. This example
would be grouped under the case plan Return to Family because the point
value of that plan i s greater than that of adoption. Table 11, page 30,
shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of a l l ongoing cases by the most work- intensive
case plan.
( 1 ) Case plans are the indicators used i n the New Mexico case weighting model. See the
analysis of weighted caseloads on page 16.
( 2) Any other case plans involved i n the 205 documented multiple case plan cases are not
reflected i n this grouping. Therefore, these results cannot be assumed to be the
demographic breakout of case plans for a1 1 the children included.
TABLE 11
DISTRIBUTION OF ALL ONGOING CASES REVIEWED
IN OCTOBER 1990 BY CASE PLAN
Case Plan Goal
Remain with Family
Return to Family
Long- Term Foster Care
Interstate Compact Placed Children
Adopt i on
Severance and Adopt i on
Placement with a Relative
Legal Guardianship
Independent Living
Total
Number
of Cases
Percent age
of Total
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff f i l e review of CPS cases.
CHAPTER V
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
During our review of the CPS workload, we observed problems with the
information maintained by ACYF about Child Protective Services. The
Chi Id Protective Services Central Registry ( CPSCR), a system designed to
track reports of abuse or neglect but not cases receiving services does
not provide data needed for estimating workload. Although some CPSCR
data can be used as an indicator of intake staffing requirements, there
are problems with the quality of this data. To date, manual counts of
active cases and clients served have been the only source of workload
information. However, we also found discrepancies i- n manual case counts
submitted to the central office. Similar problems may reduce the
usefulness of the new ACYF automated data system.
CPSCR Data
Is Limited
A t the present time, the ACYF automated data systems provide no direct
information for measuring CPS workload. Although the CPSCR tracks the
number of reports and their results, i t does not combine duplicate
reports about the same incident or family into cases. The system also
does not track any information about the reports after an investigation
is completed so i t cannot provide information about ongoing services. In
addition, CPSCR data accuracy is l i m i ted due to classification probl& ns
and i ncons i st en t cod i ng .
Shortcomings as a measurement of workload - CPSCR data cannot be used to
measure CPS caseloads because the CPSCR only records reports, thei r
disposition, and the results of investigations. Caseload is measured by
the number of cases investigated or managed by a CPS caseworker.
Further, some of the reports recorded on the CPSCR are multiple calls
involving the same case. A single incident reported by a family member,
a school o f f i c i a l , and a physician is recorded as three separate reports
on the CPSCR. Thus, CPSCR data can not be used to count CPS
investigations. The number of reports investigated would be an
overstatement of the number of intake cases actually investigated by CPS
workers.
31
CPS ongoing staff workloads are affected by the number of cases
transferred to ongoing status. Although the system tracks whether or not
reports result in an ongoing case, this data is also of limited use
because of the problem of multiple reports of a single case. Thus,
Registry data does not provide a reliable basis for estimating the number
of reports that become unique ongoing cases managed by CPS caseworkers.
Despite i t s limitations as a basis for measuring workload, the Registry
provides reasonably accurate information about the number and type of
reports received and is the only centralized source of informat ion about
the number of reports that are investigated. Thus, we were able to use
CPSCR data for these two purposes. ( See Chapter I, page 7.)
Classification ~ robleng - During f i e l d interviews, we identified
inconsistencies in the manner in which some reports are classified by CPS
s t a f f . One important inconsistency is in the use of the " for information
onlyw and " appropriate for investigation but not investigatedn
categories. Supervisors acknowledge that some reports classified " for
information only1' would have been investigated i f staff were available.
One CPS report notes that the percentage of reports recorded as
appropriate for investigation dropped 12 percent between fiscal years
1987 and 1988, while the number of reports recorded as " information onlyM
increased by an unspecified amount. We were unable to determine the
extent of this problem because CPS supervisors do not typically document
why they categorize reports as " information only." However, these
inconsistencies in the classification of reports lessen confidence in the
system's use as a complete means for measuring potential CPS
investigative workload.
Inconsistent coding - We also observed problems with inconsistent coding
of information. For example, we identified cases which were miscoded as
being " closedM after an intake investigation, when these cases had
actual ly been transferred to ongoing status. One supervisor noted that
he routinely coded cases in this manner. This type of miscoding affects
CPS1 a b i l i t y to accurately count the number of reports that result in
ongo i ng cases.
Case Counts
Contain Discrepancieg
Since the CPSCR was not designed to be a complete source of information
about workload, manual case count data must be used as a supplemental
source of information. Case count sheets, completed monthly, are added
together manually to determine the total number of active cases each
month. The case count sheets provided a starting point for our review.
As part of that review we verified the counts with CPS staff and their
supervisors and discovered the following discrepancies:
Some workers recorded a l l children in the family as their caseload,
others recorded only the chi ldren di rect ly served.
Some offices inappropriately transferred intake cases to ongoing
status. One office recorded intake cases open on the last day of the
month as both intake and ongoing cases regardless of the fact that
the case a c t i v i t y was not that of an ongoing case, Another office in
the same d i s t r i c t automatically transferred a l l intake investigations
open longer than 21 days to ongoing status. In both instances these
actions i n f l a t e case counts.
In one office, a worker with responsibility for both intake and
ongoing cases recorded a l l cases handled as ongoing cases.
Closed cases are incorrectly included on the end- of- the- month case
counts, thereby distorting end- of- the- month counts. Although errors
may be corrected by the end of the following month, new errors
continue to reduce the r e l i a b i l i t y of the monthly case counts. These
errors are particularly confusing when monthly reports are compared,
because the case count at the end of one month does not match the
count at the beginning of the next month.
Although we did not quantify the extent of these problems, their
existence raises questions about the accuracy of CPS case counts.
Potential Data Problems
In New Information Svstem
The types of problems with policy interpretation and follow through that
we observed may also l i m i t the usefulness of the new ACYF data system,
ASSIST, which is intended to provide better information about child
protective service workloads as well as perform other ACYF functions.
These problems appear to result from the lack of a we1 I- defined pol icy
about how data should be recorded, inadequate training, and ineffective
supervisory review. Unless ACYF ensures more consistent, accurate data
col lect ion, the use of ASSIST may result in simi lar informat ion problems.
Although we did not attempt to definitively trace the causes of these
problems, several possible reasons became apparent during our f i l e
review. We found that CPS staff differed in their understanding of how
information should be recorded. Although CPS staff were able to
articulate t h e i r understanding of how they should handle data, not a l l
shared the same understanding. Staff also noted that caseworkers have
not been given sufficient training to help them record information about
cases consistently and accurately. Finally, the nature of many errors,
such as the inclusion of inactive cases in case counts, indicates that
supervisors did not always check the reports submitted by their staff and
follow up on them, thus eliminating an important control over the
accuracy of information.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
How many s t a f f are needed to investigate a l l appropriate reports of child
abuse? Our review of CPS workloads found that this question cannot be
f u l l y answered because key information i s currently unavailable. We were
able to develop some workload estimates as part of the review; however,
this information i s too limited t o serve as the basis for completely
determining CPS s t a f f i n g needs. ACYF needs to take several steps to
compile the information needed for establishing s t a f f i n g levels.
Workload Analysis Provide
Limited Staffina- Estimates
By reviewing case f i l e s at CPS offices throughout the State, our
methodology enabled us to document reliable estimates of CPS workloads
for October 1990. We were also able t o i d e n t i f y certain case management
requirements by using a case weighting model and applying professional
organization standards to the workloads identified. This analysis
i d e n t i f i e s a number of considerations for evaluating CPS s t a f f i n g needs.
CPS's a b i l i t y to recruit and retain caseworkers d i r e c t l y affects
caseloads. We found that f i l l i n g a l l vacant positions would have
reduced intake caseloads by 6 percent and ongoing case loads by 11
percent in October 1990. ( A recent WA study noted that CPS had a
Statewide turnover rate of 14 percent which was comparable to the
average turnover rate f o r a l l State employees. However, some
d i s t r i c t s had considerably higher rates for specific types of
caseworkers.)
When s t a f f i n g ratios are compared to professional standards, i t
appears CPS has a greater need for additional intake s t a f f than
ongoing s t a f f . CPS s t a f f i n g requirements for ongoing cases in most
d i s t r i c t s appear to be adequately addressed through the use of
contract caseworkers and full- time s t a f f . Thus, ACYF may choose to
transfer full- time ongoing caseworkers to intake a c t i v i t i e s .
Our analysis also indicates that s t a f f i n g disparities exist among
ACYF d i s t r i c t s and offices. These disparities could be addressed by
reallocating positions and transferring s t a f f among d i s t r i c t s and
o f f ices.
Contract staff accounted for 11 percent of the FTEs in our sample.
CPS administrators interpret their statutes as prohibiting them from
assigning intake cases to contract staff or transferring contracted
caseworkers to intake positions. Consequently, this reduces CPS's
a b i l i t y to equalize caseloads through i t s use of contract
caseworkers. Therefore, the Legislature may wish to increase ACYF
f l e x i b i l i t y by creating full- time State positions from the funding
now being used for contract workers.
However, our review methodology produced information that is limited to a
specific time frame and, therefore, does not provide a basis for
estimating long- term staffing needs for investigating a l l appropriate
reports. In developing our analysis, we encountered three significant
limitations:
Data about the number of cases that were appropriate for
investigation but not investigated could not be f u l l y documented.
Thus, a key element for determining the number of staff needed
remains unavailable.
ACYF lacks information about the amount of time staff spend in
actually providing child protective services. Some staff spend
substantial portions of their time in a c t i v i t i e s not related to child
protection. However, ACYF does not record this time in any
systematic way. Our analysis relies on estimates provided by
individual caseworkers about the amount of time they actually spent
performing protective service functions.
We were unable to identify any widely accepted c r i t e r i a for assessing
the adequacy of staffing. Contacts with other states documented a
variety of methods for estimating staff needs. Although we used a
New Mexico weighting model and standards developed by the Chi Id
Welfare League of America to compare CPS workloads, we found no
c r i t e r i a for establishing an optimum staffing level. Determining the
optimum staffing level is a pol icy decision to be made by the
Legislature with input from agency s t a f f .
Steos Needed TQ
Determine Staff ina Levels
Determining the number of staff needed to investigate and manage a l l
appropriate reports of child abuse requires accurate data and objective
workload standards. Once the information and standards are in place,
ACYF w i l l be more able to manage present staff and request additional
s t a f f , i f needed.
ACYF must establish a management information system that provides
accurate and reliable information about key a c t i v i t i e s . Establishing
this system requires a policy that specifies and defines the information
to be reported. ACYF should inform a l l staff of this policy. ACYF also
needs to t r a i n s t a f f in how to report information. Supervisors should
ensure that the required information is reported in a timely, accurate
manner. Finally, central office staff should conduct periodic quality
control reviews to ensure the accuracy of reporting.
Accurate data alone w i l l not be sufficient to determine the number of
staff required, although it is a necessary f i r s t step. Workload
standards are also necessary in order to translate a c t i v i t y requirements
into staffing levels. Such standards must establish caseloads for staff
and distinguish among the different types of cases that can make up these
caseloads. Establishing standards requires a joint e f f o r t between ACYF
and the Legislature. ACYF's role is to demonstrate how different options
for selecting standards ' meet the goals for managing chi Id protective
service objectives and to estimate the costs of implementing these
options. In assuming this role, ACYF must provide objective research and
analysis to document i t s reconmended choices. The Legislature's role is
to select the option i t thinks is most appropriate within i t s established
funding constraints. In the absence of this type of joint e f f o r t ,
determining the appropriate staffing levels w i l l not be possible.
1. ACYF should continue i t s efforts to develop a management information
system that provides accurate, reliable data on child protective
service a c t i v i t i e s . The system should include well- defined policies
on reporting requirements, staff training, and adequate staff
supervision.
2. ACYF should use the information provided by i t s management
information system to develop and analyze options for staffing CPS
functions. The options should include recommended staffing standards
and the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for them.
3. The Legislature should consider establ ishing appropriate staffing
standards based on the information provided by ACYF. In doing so,
the Legislature may also wish to consider providing additional
full- time staff with funds that are now being used for contract staff.
4. ACYF should use the staffing standards to evaluate i t s current
staffing patterns and reassign staff as needed.
During the audit we developed other pertinent information regarding the
length of time cases remain in the CPS system and how quickly CPS
responds to reports of abuse and neglect.
Lenuth Of Time In System
The length of time a child remains in the CPS system varies from one day
to several years. Most of the ongoing cases active in October 1990 that
we reviewed had entered the system within the past 2 years. Of the
closed cases we reviewed, most were intake investigations that closed
within a few weeks of the i n i t i a l report. However, the cases that closed
after transfer to ongoing status remained in the system an average of 1
year or more, depending on the type of case plan.
We looked at the length of time cases remained in the CPS system in two
ways. Neither way is s t a t i s t i c a l l y precise because each is based on
cases that were originally selected for the purpose of evaluating
caseworker caseloads. We looked at the length of time that 2,179 ongoing
cases active in October 1990 had been in the system. We also looked at
the length of time between the opening and closure of 1,516 cases that
closed while we were conducting f i l e reviews. In categorizing these
cases for our analysis, we recorded the case plan at the time of closure
and did not include any information about previous case plans. ( For a
complete discussion of the methodology used for this analysis, see page
A- 20 of the Technical Appendix . 1
M
Active Case
Most of the 2,179 active ongoing cases in our October 1990 caseworker
review had been in the system 2 years or less. Of the active ongoing
cases in our review, 66 percent had entered the system during the
preceding 24 months.
Few long- term cases were identified during our f i l e review. We found
less than 10 percent ( 203) of the ongoing cases had been in the system
more than 5 years, and less than 1 percent ( 17) had been in the system
more than 10 years. According to CPS s t a f f , some cases remain in the
system for several years because a child may be removed from hislher home
and the fami ly situation does not improve sufficiently to al low the
chi Id's return. Although CPS may work for the chi ldets adopt ion, factors
such as age, special needs, or a v a i l a b i l i t y of placements may preclude an
adoption. I f other case goals, such as legal guardianship with a
relative, are not an option, long- term foster care may be the best option
available. Consequently, the child may remain under CPS supervision
u n t i l he or she reaches age 18.
M
Closed Cases
Our analysis of closed cases indicates that the length of time a case
remained in the system varied considerably between cases that closed at
intake and those that became ongoing cases. Most cases are closed after
a short intake investigation.
Intake cases - The majority of closed cases in our sample were closed
after a short investigation. According to CPS staff, cases closed at
intake are either invalid or i f valid, the child did not appear to be at
risk of future abuse. Cases closed at intake constituted 82 percent of
the 1,516 closed cases that we reviewed. The average length of time
needed to close these cases was 22 days; however, the majority were
closed within 15 days of the i n i t i a l report.
aclcloina cases - The remaining 18 percent of closed cases in our sample
were ongoing cases. For our analysis, we divided these cases into two
g roups :
In- Horng - These were cases that had a Remai n w i th Fam i l y case p Ian
at the time of closure. The average length of time necessary to
close this type of case was approximately 1 year; however, one- half
of these cases closed in 8 months or less.
Out- of- Homg - These were cases that had a Return to Fami ly or one of
the out- of- home placement case plans at the time of closure. The
average length of time necessary to close this type of case was
approximately 3 years; however, one- half of these cases closed in
approximately 2 years.
Table 12 shows the length of time the closed cases in the sample remained
in the system based on the three types of cases.
TABLE 12
LENGTH OF TIME NEEDED TO CLOSE CPS CASES
FOR A SELECTED SAMPLE OF CLOSED CASES
l ntake --- 0naoina Cases---
In- tknne Out- of- Home Total '
1 to 180 days 1 ,237 77 . 11 1 ,325
181 days to 1 year 3 66 8 77
More than 1 year but
less than 2 years 0
More than 2 years 0
Total number of
cases L a
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff f i l e review of CPS cases.
CPS Res~ onse Time
CPS responds to most reports of alleged chi Id abuse within the time frame
established by i t s policy. However, in some cases response time
significantly exceeds policy requirements.
CPS has established policies that specify the time in which workers must
respond to reports. When reports involve potentially severe or
life- threatening situations, investigations must begin within 2 hours
after a case is assigned. Investigations of minor problems and less
harmful situations must begin within 1 work week. Table 13 describes the
four investigative p r i o r i t y levels of child abuse and the associated time
frame for a response to each. ( For a complete description of the
p r i o r i t y levels, see pages A- 10 of the Technical Appendix.)
TABLE 13
DESCRIPTIONS AND RESPONSE TIMES OF CPS PRIORITY LEVELS
P r i o r i t y
Leve l Descri~ tion
Response Time
After Assianment
One death, severe physical abuse, l i f e - 2 Rours
threatening medical neglect, immediate
danger/ child l e f t alone
Two
Three
Four
serious physical abuse, serious or
severe sexual abuse,
serious physical or medical neglect
moderate physical/ medical neglect
or sexual abuse, emotional abuse,
inadequate supervision
minor abuse and neglect, potential
abuse or neglect, exploitation,
substance exposed newborn
48 hours
2 work days
1 work week
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, ACYF Policy and
Procedures Manual.
Delays appear to occur not only in performing the investigation but also
in assigning cases for investigation. We reviewed CPS response time in
two ways. We measured the time between the i n i t i a l report and the onset
of the investigation without regard to assignment. Using this measure,
we found CPS responded in a t ime l y manner i n 83 percent of the cases we
reviewed. However, CPS administrators said that they base the timeliness
of responses on the date or time a case is assigned to a caseworker.
Using the CPS measure, CPS responded in a timely manner in 92 percent of
the cases we reviewed.
CPS staff noted that some delays occur for the following reasons:
A supervisor may delay assigning a report for investigation because
staff resources are limited and other p r i o r i t i e s take precedence.
Lower p r i o r i t y cases may not be transmitted from central telephone
intake u n t i l the day after they are received or longer and,
therefore, the amount of time before a case is assigned to a
caseworker i s i nc reased .
A supervisor may t r y to obtain more information before assigning a
case.
Although CPS responded in a timely manner in the majority of cases we
rev i ewed , the un t i me I y responses i n some cases i nvo I ved se r i ous
allegations. We identified 17 " p r i o r i t y one" reports where
investigations were not initiated within 2 hours of the report.(')
Thirteen of these reports were not assigned to a caseworker for 2 or more
days after the report was received; however, once assigned, they were
investigated in a timely manner. These cases were usually postponed less
than 5 days; one case was delayed 11 days. Three of the 17 cases were
assigned on the day the report was received; however, investigations were
not i n i t i a t e d within the recomnended time frames. One of these cases was
not assigned for 2 days and was not investigated for another 6 days.
( 1) We i d e n t i f i e d another 20 " p r i o r i t y one" cases where there was an apparent 1- day
delay. However, because response time was not included i n our statutory charge we had
not recorded the time of day the report was received when we collected our data. Not
knowing the time of day the cases were received, i t i s possible that CPS met i t s
response c r i t e r i o n i n these 20 cases.
We were unable to determine why these specific delays occurred. For
several cases we contacted the supervisor to determine the reason for the
delays. Because some of these cases had been i n the system a few years,
had been transferred from caseworker to caseworker, and the reasons for
delay had rarely been documented, supervisors were not able to provide an
explanation. In two cases the supervisor indicated that the intake
caseworker may have recorded the incorrect date, thereby causing i t to
appear as i f there had been a delay. In one case CPS delayed assigning
the case although action had been taken on this case before i t was
assigned to a caseworker.( i)
( 1) This case involved an abandoned infant that had been taken to the hospital and could
be released only to CPS custody. Although CPS had taken action, the case was not
assigned to a caseworker u n t i l the hospital was ready to release the infant.
A P P E N D I X I
TABLES OF CPS REPORT DISPOSITION BY DISTRICT
TABLE 14
CPS REPORT DISPOSITION BY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ABUSE FOR EACH DISTRICT
BETVEEN AUGUST 1. 1990 AID JANUARY 31. 1991
Appropriate For
Investigation
But Not
Investigated
I0
Disposition
Recorded
On CPSCR
Reports
Received
Information
Only Investigated
DISTRICT I
Death of Child
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor Abuse/ Neglect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Sexual Abuse
Total
DISTRICT I 1
Death of Child
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor Abuse/ Neglect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Sexual Abuse
Total
DISTRICT I11
Death of Child
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor Abuse/ Neglect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Sexual Abuse
Total
DISTRICT IV
Death o f C h i l d
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor Abuse/ Negiect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Sexual Abuse
Total
TABLE 14 Con't
CPS REPORT DISPOSITIW BY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ABUSE FOR EACH DISTRICT
BETUEEY AUGUST 1. 1990 AND JANUARY 31. 1991
Appropriate For N o
I n v e s t i g a t i o n D i s p o s i t i o n
Reports Information But Not Recorded
Received Only Investigated On CPSCR Investigated
DISTRICT V
Death o f C h i l d
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor AbuseINegLect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Total
DISTRICT VI
Death of Child
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor Abuse/ Neglect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Sexual Abuse
Total
STATEU I DE TOTAL
Source: Office of the Auditor General, s t a f f anaiysis o f C h i l d Protective Services Central Registry
monthly reports between August 1, 1990 and January 31, 1991.
TABLE 15
CPS REPORT DISPOSITION BY PRIORITY LEVEL FOR EACH DISTRICT
BETWEEN AUGUST 1. 1990 AND JANUARY 31. 1991
Appropriate For
Investigation
P r i o r i t y Reports Information But Not
Level Received Only Investigated
NO
Disposition
Recorded
D i s t r i c t On CPSCR
DISTRICT I
Investigated
One 19 2 0
Tuo 1,360 5 64 13
Three 2,591 740 220
Four 5,291 2,898 - 358
Total
DISTRICT I 1 One 18 7 0 0
Two 96 1 375 17 12
Three 2,052 760 2 70 2 6
Four 1,377 - 671 - 321 - 25
Total
DISTRICT 111 One 5 3 4
Two 68 10
Three 314 4 4
Four - 5 15 - 218
Total
DISTRICT IV One 98 5
Two 137 17
Three 392 5 1
Four 857 - 326
Total
DISTRICT V One 3 2 3
Two 68 6
Three 222 4 8
Four 415 - 178
Total
DISTRICT V I One 69 1 1 0
Two 117 8 5 1
Three 347 3 5 2 0 0
Four - 540 - 128 - 43 - 1
Total
STATEWIDE
Source: Office of the Auditor General, s t a f f analysis of C h i l d P r o t e c t i v e Services Centrai Registry
monthly reports between August 1, 1990 and January 31, 1991.
APPENDIX II
T E C H N I C A L A P P E N D I X
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Introduction
This appendix describes the methodological design and procedures used to
determine caseload size, caseload mix, s t a f f i n g ratios, and the number
and type of reports CPS received.
ACYF i s organized into six d i s t r i c t s Statewide. The following l i s t
i d e n t i f i e s each d i s t r i c t , the location of each d i s t r i c t administrative
o f f i c e , and the counties that constitute each d i s t r i c t .
D i s t r i c t I: Phoenix - Maricopa County
D i s t r i c t II: Tucson - Pima County
D i s t r i c t I l l : Flagstaff - Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, and
Apache Counties
D i s t r i c t IV: Yuma - Yuma, Mohave, and La Paz Counties
D i s t r i c t V: Casa Grande - Pinal and Gila Counties
D i s t r i c t V I : Bisbee - Cochise, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, and
Graham Count i es
A t the outset of the study we met with numerous DES ACYF s t a f f to become
familiar with CPS operations. We v i s i t e d offices in five of the six ACYF
d i s t r i c t s and interviewed program managers, assistant program managers,
supervisors, caseworkers, and telephone intake s t a f f in the six
d i s t r i c t s . We accompanied caseworkers as they performed investigations
and case management a c t i v i t i e s and met with telephone intake s t a f f during
the time they received c a l l s from the public. In addition to our
meetings with CPS s t a f f , we also met with central o f f i c e administrators
to gain an understanding of policies and procedures, Statewide goals, and
administrative concerns regarding CPS operations.
Sam~ linq
Methodology
The research design for determining caseload size, caseload mix, and
s t a f f i n g ratios was based on a Statewide sample of caseworkers and a f i l e
review of their cases that were active during October 1990.
From our v i s i t s to local offices and interviews, we concluded that a
Statewide sample was needed. Staff identified several factors
peculiar to their office or d i s t r i c t that may affect case management. Of
particular concern was the differences between urban and rural offices,
such as the a v a i l a b i l i t y of placements and traveling long distances to
v i s i t children in rural areas. In addition, we identified differences in
operations not only among d i s t r i c t s but also among local offices that may
affect caseload. We concluded that each d i s t r i c t must be represented in
the study.
Because the primary informat ion requested by the Legislature concerned
the number of cases handled by a caseworker, we selected the caseworker
as the unit of analysis. Although numerous ACYF employees are involved
in CPS a c t i v i t i e s , we defined the population to include only those
caseworkers that investigate reports of abuse and directly perform
ongoing case management functions. Our definition excludes telephone
intake s t a f f , parent aides, day care, foster home and adoptive home
licensing s t a f f , and nightlweekend staff and supervisors that may manage
some cases.
We a l so exc l uded the adopt ion and young adu l t program un i ts i n Mar i copa
County from our study population. When we i n i t i a l l y defined the
population, we viewed these units as organizationally separate from the
typical CPS units. However, during the course of the study we concluded
that their exclusion may influence the result of certain analyses, such
as the length of time cases remain in the system. For this reason, we
later collected information from the population of the adoption and young
adult program units to supplement selected analyses.
To determine the population of caseworkers, we identified caseworkers
appearing on ACYF organizational charts. We then contacted unit
supervisors or area program managers to confirm that those caseworkers
were working in their respective units in October 1990, to ascertain
their specific duties, i f they were contract or State employees, and to
identify any additional caseworkers. The defined population, including
contract caseworkers, totaled 391 casewoikers Statewide.
The size of the sample was calculated by using the generally accepted
confidence level of 95 percent with a r e l i a b i l i t y factor of plus or minus
4 percent. The required sample size totaled 236 caseworkers.
Recognizing that some caseworkers selected in the sample may have to be
A- 5
replaced because of vacancies or for other reasons, we elected to over-sample
by 35 caseworkers, which resulted in a total sample of 271
caseworkers. Caseworkers were then randomly selected and identified by
d i s t r i c t and unit. The sample adequately represents the caseworker
population by d i s t r i c t .
We also performed a follow- up analysis i n D i s t r i c t I for February 1991.
At the time of our original data collection, D i s t r i c t I was in the
process of hiring several new caseworkers and reorganizing offices. CPS
administrators said that most new employees should be hired by January
1991. Because of the influx of new caseworkers, we f e l t that caseload
size might be influenced. Therefore, we decided to collect data a second
time to determine the i n i t i a l impact that additional employees might have
on caseload size. We followed the same procedures in determining the
population. Once the population was confirmed, we randomly selected 88
caseworkers and an additional 20 caseworkers in the event we needed to
replace any of the staff i n i t i a l l y selected.
Data Collection
Data collection began in early November 1990 and continued through
January 1991. Data was collected for cases that were active during
October 1990. According to ACYF administrators, October 1990 was a good
month to sample because i t adequately represented an average month for
reports. It is not a month that typically has an unusually high number
of calls, such as September because of the start of school or the summer
months that typically have fewer reports. A month time frame was also
considered an adequate period of time to encapsulate caseload
information. To identify active cases, we used the case count summary
completed at the end of the month by each caseworker. This summary l i s t s
a l l cases handled by the caseworker during the month.
Before reviewing case f i l e s , Auditor General staff took steps to verify
that case count sumnaries were accurate. I f available, auditors reviewed
supervisor logs to ensure that al l cases that had been assigned by the
supervisor appeared on the case count summary. Because not al l units
maintain supervisor logs and not a l l logs are kept in the same manner, we
were unable to review supervisor logs in every unit. Auditors also
compared the sumnary against the actual case f i l e to ensure that a l l
appropriate cases in the caseworker's possession had been listed and that
a l l cases listed could be accounted for.
Auditors reviewed each caseworker's cases for the month and collected the
fol lowing informat ion for each case:
Caseworker identification information - name, location, sample
number, and type of worker
Dates - date of report, date of case assignment, date of i n i t i a l
contact, date case was transferred to ongoing status, and date of
case closure
P r i o r i t i e s at the time of telephone intake and after report
investigation
Characteristics of the case - intake or ongoing, new case in October
1990, open or closed in October 1990, and transferred to another
caseworker
Case plan as of October 1990
Number of children served
During the f i l e reviews auditors also verified that cases appearing on
the summaries were open in October 1990. For example, even though a case
appeared on the October 1990 end- of- the- month summary, the information in
some f i l e s stated that the case had been closed in September 1990. In
these instances, the case was not included in our database. There were
also instances in which the documentation in a f i l e indicated no work had
been done on the case for several months. In these instances, auditors
spoke with the caseworker or supervisor to determine i f recent contact
had been made on the case or i f i t should have been closed. I f i t should
have been closed, the case was not included in the database.
In addition to a f i le review, we also surveyed caseworkers to obtain the
information needed for the analysis. We obtained information regarding
their type and length of employment with CPS; estimates of the amount of
time they spent on intake, ongoing, or other ACYF functions during
October 1990, and i f they were full- time or part- time employees.
After completing the data collection phase, we spent several weeks
verifying information, collecting missing forms or information, and
locating cases that had not been entered into the database. We also
tested the internal consistency of the information ( such as intake
caseworkers' cases that should have been designated as intake rather than
ongoing cases) and verified questionable entries. In total we reviewed
various f i l e s that contained information from more than 5,000 cases.
For the follow- up analysis of Maricopa County, we collected data for
February 1991. We obtained this follow- up information from cases that
were active in February 1991 and performed the same general procedures as
we did for the i n i t i a l collection e f f o r t .
DATA ANALYSIS
Number And
Type Of Reports
To determine the number and types of reports, we compiled numbers from
CPS Central Registry reports from August 1, 1990 through January 31,
1991. Central Registry reports contain information about each incident of
abuse reported to CPS. We compiled this information to determine the
number and types of incidents reported, the p r i o r i t y assigned to each at
the time the incident was reported, and the disposition of each report.
Because we were aware that some data fields in the Central Registry are
not reliable, we performed a limited test of the specific fields we would
be using. We collected intake forms at local offices and then compared
these forms to the Central Registry information. We did this to confirm
that the information had been entered correctly into the Central
Registry. Although we identified a few errors, we were reasonably
assured that the number of reports received and i n i t i a l p r i o r i t y
characteristics assigned to data fields were accurately recorded.
However, the " after investigation" f i e l d does not appear to be complete.
We found that 32 percent of the reports did not have an " after
investigationI1 finding entered. This limited our a b i l i t y to accurately
determine the number of valid or invalid reports.
To determine the type of report, we used CPS p r i o r i t y codes to identify
the types of abuse cases reported to CPS. We performed two analyses for
each type of report. The f i r s t analysis identified and segregated
reports in terms of the p r i o r i t y level assigned to the case. The
p r i o r i t y code is outlined in DES ACYF policy and determines the amount of
time within which a caseworker must respond to a report. Table 16
provides a l i s t of the CPS p r i o r i t y levels, a description of the
allegations, and the prescribed response time for each.
TABLE 16
DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGATIONS
AND RESPONSE TIMES OF CPS BY
PRIORITY LEVELS AND CHARACTERISTICS
P r i o r i t y Response Time
Level Characteristic Description of Alleeation After Assianment
One 01 Death of a Child 2 hours
02 Severe Physical Abuse
03 Life- Threatening
Medical Neglect
04 Reserved
05 Immediate Danger/
Chi Id Left Alone
06 Infant Doe - ( chi Id
younger than 12 months
being deprived of necessary
medical care or nourishment)
Two
Three
Fou r
07 Ser i ous Phys i ca l Abuse
08 Serious Physical/
Medical Neglect
09 Severe Sexual Abuse
10 Serious Sexual Abuse
48 hours
11 Moderate Physical Abuse 2 work days
12 Moderate Physical/
Medical Neglect
13 Moderate Sexual Abuse
14 Emotional Abuse
15 Reserved
16 l nadequat e Superv i s i on
17 Dependent Ch i l d Under
Age 12
18 Minor Abuse and Neglect 1 work week
19 Potential Abuse or Neglect
20 Dependent Child Over Age 12
21 Exploitation
22 Substance- Exposed Newborn
23 Delinquent/ lncorrigible
Child Under Age 8
Source: Department of Economic Security, ACYF policy and procedures
manual .
By p r i o r i t y level, we calculated the total number of reports, the total
number investigated, and the disposition.
The second analysis identified the number and type of reports by type of
abuse. We grouped cases with similar characteristics from the four
p r i o r i t y levels. For example, the sex abuse category includes
characteristic numbers 9, 10, and 13. We then calculated the number of
reports, the number investigated and the disposition based on abuse type.
Table 17 l i s t s the abuse types and the corresponding p r i o r i t y
characteristics.
TABLE 17
ABUSE TYPES AND CORRESPONDING CHARACTERISTICS
Abuse Tvpes Corres~ ondina Characteristics
Death
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Physical Abuse
Potential and Minor Abuse/ Negligence
Neg l ec t
Sex Abuse
Other
Caseload Size
We determined the size of the average CPS caseload in two ways: for a l l
ful I- t ime caseworkers and for each type of caseworker, i . e., intake and
ongoing caseworkers. To identify caseworkers that have an excessive
number of cases or an excessive number of the most d i f f i c u l t types of
cases, we app l i ed a case weight i ng component. ( See page 16 for the
results of the case weighting.)
Caseload size for full- time caseworkera - Of 236 caseworkers in the
sample, we identified 201 performing case management a c t i v i t i e s
ful I- t ime. To determine average caseload size for ful I- t ime caseworkers,
we calculated the total number of cases these caseworkers managed in
October 1990 and then divided this figure by the total number of
full- time caseworkers. We determined the average caseload for full- time
caseworkers Statewide and also by d i s t r i c t .
Caseload size for the t v ~ e s of caseworkers - To determine average
caseload size by type of caseworker, we grouped caseworkers by the type
of case they manage. For purposes of this study, we grouped caseworkers
into four categories: intake, ongoing, mixed, and other mix.
Intake caseworkers primarily perform investigative a c t i v i t i e s and
i n i t i a t e services. An intake caseworker may also assess the child's
and family's situation and their a b i l i t y to change, and make
recommendations to the court. Intake cases that are not sent to
ongoing status are typically closed within 2 to 3 weeks.
Onwina caseworkers pr imar i ly per form case management services for
cases that remain in the system from several months to several years.
An ongoing caseworker coordinates services and the a c t i v i t i e s of the
parties involved, monitors and assesses the child's and family's
progress, and makes recommendations to the courts.
Mixed caseworkers manage both intake and ongoing cases and per form
functions appropriate for each type of case.
Other mix caseworkers may manage intake, ongoing , or both intake and
ongoing cases in addition to performing other ACYF functions such as
licensing.
The following steps were taken to determine caseload size.
1. For each caseworker group, we calculated the total number of cases
handled by these caseworkers during October 1990.
2. We then divided the total number of cases for each group by the total
number of caseworkers in each group. We determined the average
caseload size for each group of caseworkers by d i s t r i c t and
Statewide. In some d i s t r i c t s because there were so few mixed and
other mix caseworkers, a figure for average caseload size was not
meaningful; therefore, this figure is not presented.
3. We repeated the analysis for a February 1991 sample in D i s t r i c t I.
Staff ina Ratiq
The staffing ratio analysis is similar to the caseload size analysis.
However, this analysis factors in the percentage of time a l l sampled
caseworkers devoted to intake and ongoing a c t i v i t i e s . Factoring in the
amount of time the 236 sampled caseworkers spent on CPS a c t i v i t i e s allows
us to determine the number of Full- Time Equivalent ( FTE) caseworkers and
the ratio of cases to each FTE.
To determine the amount of time caseworkers devoted to CPS duties and
other ACYF functions, we asked sampled caseworkers to estimate the time
they spent in intake, ongoing, and other ACYF a c t i v i t i e s such as
licensing functions for October 1990. We also considered i f they were
ful I- or part- time caseworkers.
To determine staffing ratios we calculated the following:
1. the total number of intake and ongoing cases by d i s t r i c t
2. the amount of time FTEs spent on intake and ongoing a c t i v i t i e s . ( For
caseworkers that performed not only intake and ongoing functions, but
also other ACYF a c t i v i t i e s , we included in our calculation only the
portion of FTE time that was related to intake and ongoing
a c t i v i t i e s . ) The following steps describe the specific calculations
and Exhibit A i l l u s t r a t e s the calculations described.
the total FTEs ( column 2 in Exhibit A)
0 total portionofFTE timespenton i n t a k e a c t i v i t i e s ( column5)
total portionofFTE timespentonongoingactivities ( column6)
total portion of FTE time spent on CPS a c t i v i t i e s ( column 7)
3. total number of cases for each category divided by the total number of
FTEs for each category of caseworker. For example, the total number of
intake cases was divided by total number of intake FTEs
4. repeated the analysis of data for D i s t r i c t I for February 1991
EXHIBIT A
CALCULATIONS OF CPS CASEWORKER TIME BY ACTIVITY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Intake Ongoing Intake Ongoing Intake/ Ongoing
Percentage Percentage Portion Portion Portion Combined
Caseworker FTE pf T i l g pf Ting FTE F- TE F- TE
A 0.5 0% 100% 0 . O 0.5 0.5
B 1.0 100 0 1 . o 0 . o 1 . o
C 1 . O 60 40 0.6 0.4 1 . O
D 1 . O 40 30 0.4 0.3 0.7
We performed a similar analysis by d i s t r i c t to determine what staffing
ratios would be i f CPS investigated 100 percent of reports considered
appropriate for investigation. This analysis is based on estimates of
the number of additional cases CPS caseworkers would have handled i f a l l
reports designated as " appropriate for investigation but not
investigated" had been investigated. However, because we suspect that
not a l l cases appropriate for investigation are being classified as such,
this analysis provides a minimum expected increase in staffing ratios.
To determine staffing ratios for an increased investigation rate, we took
the fol lowing steps.
a CPS monthly reports from August 1, 1990 through January 31, 1991 were
reviewed to document the number of reports investigated and the
number of reports recorded as " appropriate for investigation but not
investigated."
a A ratio of the reports designated as " appropriate for investigation
but not investigated" to those that were investigated was calculated
for each d i s t r i c t .
Each d i s t r i c t ' s ratio was converted to a multiplier.
The multiplier was applied to each d i s t r i c t ' s actual volume of
investigations managed by the sample caseworkers for October 1990.
The number of cases which would have been investigated by this group
with an increased investigation rate was extrapolated.
The previously described staffing ratio analysis was repeated;
however, the number of extrapolated cases rather than the number of
cases actually managed was used.
Caseload Mix
The case load mix analysis describes the makeup of act ive cases. We
analyzed caseload mix three ways: a proportional breakout of the number
of active intake versus ongoing cases; an analysis of the investigative
findings that brought the case to ongoing case management services; and
an analysis of October 1990 case plans for active ongoing cases.
To determine the proportion of intake and ongoing cases, we took the
following steps.
We identified cases that appeared twice in the database. Because we
did not want to double count these cases, we determined which record
shou Id be excluded from the analysis. For example, a case may have
been an intake case and was transferred to another intake
caseworker. In this instance we included only one intake record for
this analysis.
We identified both intake and ongoing cases. We calculated totals
for both types of cases and determined that 35 percent of the active
cases in our sample for October 1990 were intake cases and 65 percent
were ongoing cases.
We reviewed monthly CPS reports of case count summaries. Because our
review was not a s t a t i s t i c a l sample of cases, we wanted to ensure
that the proportion in our review sample was comparable to CPS
records. The months we reviewed confirmed the approximate breakout
by month of one- th i rd i ntake cases and two- t h i rds ongo i ng cases.
To determine the type of abuse that brought cases to ongoing services, we
i dent i f i ed the ongoing cases i n our review samp l e. The type of abuse i s
identified by the abuse finding that was assigned to the case based on
the investigation. The analysis is based on the most serious finding of
abuse or neglect against any of the children involved.
We took the following steps to determine case mix by investigative
finding for ongoing cases active in October 1990.
We identified duplicates in the database as previously described.
We identified ongoing cases active in October 1990. There were 2,225
ongoing cases. ( This excludes Interstate Compact on the Place of
Children cases because they originated in another state. Courtesy
supervision cases were also excluded because investigative findings
and dates were not always in the f i l e maintained by the supervising
caseworker . )
Of the 2,225 cases we identified 139 cases that did not include the
" after investigation" characteristic.
We prepared distributions by " after investigationN characteristics to
determine the mix of cases requiring ongoing services. The
distributions were prepared Statewide.
We grouped investigative findings into similar abuse- type categories.
For ongoing cases, the case plan is a more descriptive indicator of type
of case than p r i o r i t y level characteristics. The case plan is the stated
goal of the case and directs case management. CPS policy l i s t s seven
major case plans: Remain with Family, Return to Fami ly, Placement with
Relatives, Adoption, Legal Guardianship, Long- Term Foster Care, and
l ndependen t L i v i ng .
For purposes of this study we have used additional case plan codes.
Caseworkers f requen t l y use a case p l an of Severance and Adopt ion when the
case goal is adoption but the rights of the parents have not yet been
severed. We also recorded children from other states that are supervised
by Arizona caseworkers as an Interstate Compact on the Place of Children
case plan. Also, cases that originate and are maintained in one Arizona
d i s t r i c t but are supervised by a caseworker in another d i s t r i c t are
termed a Courtesy Supervision case plan. In addition, we also designated
intake cases with an Intake case plan rather than one of the seven case
plans listed. We did so because we wanted to distinguish intake cases
from ongoing cases in certain analyses.
We took the following steps to determine case mix by case plan for a l l
active ongoing cases.
We reviewed cases based on case plan. For cases with multiple case
plans, only the most time- intensive case plan was selected. ( Based
on a caseworker survey, we determined which case plans typically
require the most work. For a description of the survey results, see
page A- 19.)
We identified the ongoing cases in October 1990. Twelve of the 2,464
cases did not have a case plan.
We prepared a Statewide distribution by case plan.
Case Weitaht inq
Because caseload averages and staffing ratios alone do not provide a
complete picture of caseload size, due to the many factors involved in
cases, we included a case weighting component to the analysis. The
degree of d i f f i c u l t y of a case or the amount of time required to manage a
case can be influenced by several factors. One case may consist of only
one child, another may consist of several children. Siblings may be
placed in more than one foster home; thus, a caseworker may be required
to v i s i t more than one location. Court requirements for dependent
children may also place additional work on caseworkers. To further
assess case load s i ze and mix , we used case we i gh t i ng to account for the
various factors and to provide a more complete picture.
During the i n i t i a l phase of the study we reviewed case weighting methods
used within CPS and in other states. We selected the model used by
New Mexico because i t has established caseload standards, is easily
adaptable to Arizona, and was recomnended by experts in the f i e l d of
child protective services.
We are not specifically recomnending that Arizona CPS adopt the New
Mexico model. Rather, we are using this model as a method of comparison
to i l l u s t r a t e that Caseload A consisting of X number of cases is not
necessarily equal to Caseload B with the same number of cases.
New Mexico Uodel - New Mexico developed a caseload formula to comply with
a consent decree of the Federal court. A formula was developed to
determine maximum caseload size for mixed caseloads. ( Mixed caseloads in
this instance refers to the different types of case plans such as Return
Home, Adoption, Long- Term Foster Care, etc.) The formula was developed
by conducting extensive interviews to determine the a c t i v i t i e s involved
in each case plan and the percentage of time those a c t i v i t i e s required.
The Return Home case plan was determined to be the most time- intensive
case plan and became the standard against which to compare other case
plans.
In addition, New Mexico staff assumed that while other case plans might
require equivalent amounts of time, no case plan would require more time
than the Return Home case plan. For example, New Mexico determined that
a case plan with the goal of Adoption requires the same amount of time as
a case plan with the goal of Return Home. A Long- Term Foster Care case
plan requires only 40 percent of the time i t takes to handle one ~ et; rn
Home case plan. Case points were then established based on the
percentage of time assigned to each case. , Return Home and Adoption case
plans were assigned 100 points, and the Long- Term Foster Care case plan
was assigned 40 points.
The court decree also dictated maximum caseload standards. A caseload
could not consist of more than 20 families ( as defined by the court
decree) or contain more than 35 children in out of home placements.
Using these standards, the New Mexico model established a 2,000 point
l i m i t per caseload. This was determined by mu1 tiplying 20 fami lies by
100 points assigned the Return to Home case plan.
We determined that the New Mexico model could be customized using Arizona
case plans. Due to time limitations of our study, we were not able to
conduct extensive interviews to determine a c t i v i t i e s and the percentage
of time associated with those a c t i v i t i e s as did New Mexico. However,
from the interviews we conducted during the i n i t i a l phase of our study,
we concluded that, l i k e New Mexico, Arizona's Return to Family case plan
is the most time- intensive. We then established a Return to Family case
plan as the model case plan and assigned i t 100 points.
To establish the relationship of other case plans to the model case plan,
we surveyed caseworkers selected in our original sample that had recent
experience with ongoing cases. We explained the New Mexico model to them
and then asked them to estimate the proportion of time each case plan
required compared to the model case plan. We asked caseworkers to base
the estimates on their overall experience with the majority or typical
cases under each case plan rather than extreme cases. I f they had no
experience with a particular case plan, we asked them to mark i t as Ifnot
applicable." For intake caseworkers, we requested that they f i l l out the
survey only i f they had managed ongoing cases within the last year or i f
they functioned as an intake/ ongoing caseworker.
We conducted s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the responses and, based on the
responses, selected weighting factors for each case plan that best
summarized the caseworkersv experience. We reviewed the results with our
methodologist and discussed which measure of central tendency ( mean,
median, or mode) would most accurately measure the caseworkersv norm'al
experiences. The mode ( the value occurring most frequently) and the
median ( the value in a distribution in which 50 percent of the values l i e
above and 50 percent l i e below i t ) were selected. We selected these
measures of central tendency over the mean ( the average) because out lying
responses at both ends of the distribution distort the mean. In most
cases, the mode and median were identical or differed only s l i g h t l y . For
those case plans in which the difference was greater than a few points,
we selected the mode because we f e l t i t most accurately represents the
majority of caseworkers' responses. In cases where the majority opinion
was unclear ( bi- modal distributions), we selected the median value at the
center of the distribution, which f e l l between the modes.
After the data was compiled, we met with ACYF administrators and reviewed
the results with them. We also asked a small group of supervisors and
area program managers to review the results and assign an appropriate
point value to the Adopt ion case plan because we had not asked
caseworkers to do this in the original survey. Although there was no
consensus on the number of points assigned to a l l case plans, the
reviewers generally agreed with the results or disagreed only by a few
points. The Long- Term Foster Care and lndependent Living case plans and
Intake had the greatest diversity of opinion. We consulted our
methodologist and concluded that the dissenting opinions did not present
sufficient reasons to override the survey results. We elected to use the
original survey results and the reviewers' point value for Adoption case
plan as presented in Exhibit B.
EXHIBIT B
POINTS ASSIGNED TO SURVEY CASE PLANS
Case Plan
Return to Family
Severance and Adoption
l ntake
Remain with Family
Placement with Relative
Adopt i on
Legal Guardianship
ICPC/ Courtesy Supervision
Long- Term Foster Care
lndependent Living
Points
b ~ l i c a t i o no f case weiahtincr nodel to Arizona caseloads - To apply a
case weighting model to Arizona caseloads, we collected data on case
plans as of October 1990 and also data for case plans in D i s t r i c t I as of
February 1991. Some cases with multiple children may have multiple case
plans. For example, a case with three children may have as many as three
case plans: one child may have a Remain with Family case plan, the second
chi Id may have a Placement with Relative case plan, and the third chi Id
may have a Return to Family case plan. Because the case weighting
formula is designed to use the most time- intensive case plan, we used the
case plan with the highest point value for our calculations.
To determine the weighted caseload, we took the following steps.
1. We applied the respective point values to each case on every
caseworker's caseload and totaled the points.
2. We compared each weighted caseload to the maximum point value. For
a full- time CPS caseworker the maximum point value was 2,000 points
per caseload. For caseworkers that were less than full- time CPS
caseworkers, the point value was standardized based on the percentage
of time spent on CPS a c t i v i t i e s . For example, i f an other mix
caseworker spends 75 percent of hidher time on CPS, then we adjusted
the cap to 75 percent of 2,000 points or 1,500 points.
3. We developed ranges based on the percentage of the cap and determined
the number of caseworkers by d i s t r i c t and Statewide that fel l within
those ranges. For example, 50 caseworkers carried weighted caseloads
that equaled less than 50 percent of the cap. Forty- four caseworkers
exceeded the cap.
To determine the length of time each case has been in the CPS system we
performed various analyses. We concluded separate analyses should be
performed for intake and ongoing cases because the majority of intake
cases are closed within a few weeks and those cases passed to ongoing
status typically take several months, even years to resolve. . A
determination of the average length of time each case remains in the
system would be distorted by the extreme nature of the two categories.
In addition, the majority of cases we reviewed were open at the time of
our review. The analysis provides information on the length of time
active ongoing cases have been in the system but provides no information
about the length of time necessary to resolve a case. Therefore, we
performed a separate analysis of the cases that closed during our review
in an attempt to obtain some information about the length of time cases
remain in the CPS system.
The case longevity analyses are not s t a t i s t i c a l ; therefore, the results
cannot be inferred on the population of cases. Because the caseworker
was the primary unit of analysis, the sample drawn was based on
caseworkers and not cases. However, in reviewing caseworkers' f i l e s we
reviewed over 3,600 cases; over 2,100 active ongoing cases and over 1,500
closed cases. Because of the number of cases reviewed, we think our
analysis does provide some indication of the length of time cases remain
in the system even though i t lacks s t a t i s t i c a l precision.
To determine the length of time active ongoing cases remain in the CPS
system, we performed the fol lowing steps.
1. We identified duplicate cases in the database, as previously
described, so as not to double count them in this analysis.
2. We defined the entry date of a case as the date of the report or the
date of the incident that opened the current case. A family may have
many contacts with CPS over several years, and once a case is opened,
subsequent reports may also be made and investigated by CPS.
However, during our f i l e review, we identified the report that
brought the case into CPS but had not been resolved as of October 31,
1990. A l l dates collected are based on the report for that episode.
3. We identified the number of ongoing cases ( 2,179) and determined the
length of time each case had been in the CPS system.
4. We prepared a distribution of cases by year and month and then
determined ranges.
The second analysis examined cases that had closed during the time of our
review. For this analysis the time frame is not the same for each office
visited. Cases were selected because they were active in October 1990
( and February 1991 in D i s t r i c t I) but could have closed at any time
during our review. For example, when we visited the Page office in mid
November 1990, we captured the dates of the cases that had closed up
u n t i l the time of our v i s i t . However, we visited the Show Low o f f i c e i n
mid January 1991. It is possible that we may have captured a larger
number of closed cases there because these had two additional months to
close.
In addition, we included closed cases from the D i s t r i c t I adoption and
young adult program units. As noted previously, these units were
exc luded from our caseworker samp le. However, because these cases have
the potential of being in the system for a longer period of time, they
should be considered in an analysis of the length of time cases remain in
the CPS system. Therefore, we collected information on the cases that
closed in the units in October 1990 and included them in our analysis of
c I osed cases.
To determine the length of time required to close a case, we took the
fol lowing steps.
1. We identified a l l closed cases ( 1,516).
2. We determined the total number of days the cases remained in the CPS
system before closure ( the date of closure minus the date of the
report 1.
3. We distributed the number of days the cases remained in the system
into three categories: intake cases, ongoing in- home cases ( cases
with a Remain with Fami ly case plan), and ongoing cases with
out- of- home placement case plans ( based on the case plan at the time
of closure.)
These analyses are reported Statewide only and not by d i s t r i c t because of
the inconsistent time frame, the addition of D i s t r i c t I adoption and
young adult program unit cases, and the number of closed cases in some
categories of cases was too small to provide meaningful d i s t r i c t
informat ion.
Rewonse Timg
To determine how quickly CPS responds to allegations of abuse, we
compared the date of contact against the date a report was made and
against the date a case was assigned to a caseworker.
CPS policy dictates how quickly investigations of reports of abuse should
be initiated. The fol lowing l i s t b r i e f l y states the required response
times. ( For more information on p r i o r i t i e s and required response times,
see page A- 10. )
Priority One - immediate response but no longer than 2 hours.
Priority Two - prompt response but no longer than 48 hours.
Priority Three - prompt response but no l

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

ClOLlGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDlTOR I I E N F R % I
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
ALJDITBR GENERAL.
June 28, 1991
e Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Ms. Linda Moore- Cannon, Director
Department of Economic Security
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, Workload Study -
Child Protective Services. This report i s i n response to Session Laws
1990, Chapter 237, Section 21.
The report analyzes Child Protective Services workloads in several ways.
We found that the average number of cases per worker ranged from 15 to
19; the statewide average was 17 cases. Weighting cases to reflect their
relative d i f f i c u l t y showed that 19 percent of the case workers had
excessive workloads. Our analysis found that high staffing ratios may
result from CPS' i n a b i l i t y to f i l l existing positions and disparities in
staff al locations among d i s t r i c t s .
We encountered three significant limitations in attempting to determine
appropriate long term staffing levels. These limitations include the
lack of information about the number of cases that are appropriate for
investigation, limited information on the amount of staff time actually
spent providing child protective services and the lack of any widely
accepted c r i t e r i a for determining optimum staffing levels. Addressing
these limitations requires a joint e f f o r t between the Legislature and the
Department of Economic Security.
Department of Economic Security staff reviewed the preliminary draft of
this report and their comments have been incorporated. We did not
request a formal agency response.
My staff and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the report.
The report w i l l be pub1 i c l y released on July 1, 1991.
Sincerely,
d w a s I?. Norton
Aud~ tor General
DRN : l mn
2700 NORTH CENTRAL. AVENlJE SUITE 7 0 0 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 6 0 2 ) 2 5 5 - 4 3 8 5 ' FAX ( 6 0 2 ) 255- 1251
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a special analysis of
Child Protective Service ( CPS) workloads within the Department of
Economic Secur i ty ( DES) . This study was conducted in response to Sess ion
Laws 1990, Chapter 237, Section 21. . .
The Joint Legislative Oversight Comnittee on Child Protective Services
recomended that the Legislature direct the Auditor General to conduct
this study. The comnittee was concerned about the lack of information
about the number of staff and funding needed to investigate 100 percent
of calls deemed appropriate for investigation. The scope of the study
was defined by statute. The study included an assessment of the number
and type of reports, caseload size, caseload mix, and staffing ratios.
Number And Tges Of Reports
CPS Receivq ( see pages 7 through 11)
Between August 1, 1990 and January 31, 1991, CPS received 18,113 reports
of child abuse or neglect. Approximately 17 percent of the reports
( 3,000 cases) alleged life- threatening or severe situations. Another
one- third ( 5,918) were defined as moderate physical, sexual, or medical
abuse. One- half of the reports ( 9,195) alleged minor or potential abuse
and neglect.
CPS caseworkers investigated 52 percent of the 18,113 reports and
recorded 39 percent as " information onlyH reports. GPS recorded 7
percent of the reports received as " appropriate for investigation but not
investigated. lW However, this figure may actually understate the extent
to which CPS does not investigate appropriate cases. Some CPS
supervisors indicated that they record cases as " information only" rather
than " appropriate for investigation but not investigated" because they
lack sufficient staff to investigate these reports. We were unable to
determine the extent o f t h i s practice because supervisors rarely document
their reasons for categorizing reports as " information only.''
Caseload Size ( see pages 13 through 18)
Caseload size was determined three ways: average caseload for full- time
caseworkers, average case load by type of caseworker, and weighted
caseloads, which reflect the degree of d i f f i c u l t y of various cases.
Statewide, the average caseload for al l ful I- t ime caseworkers ( including
contract s t a f f ) was 17 cases. D i s t r i c t II(') had the highest average
with 19 cases per caseworker. D i s t r i c t s I I I and V had the lowest
averages w i t h 15 cases per caseworker.
Caseloads also varied for each type of caseworker. CPS uses intake
caseworkers to investigate reports of abuse and short term case
management. Ongoing caseworkers provide long term case management. The
Statewide average for intake caseworkers was 16 cases per caseworker.
The average for intake caseworkers ranged from a high of 17 cases in
D i s t r i c t I to a low of 12 cases in D i s t r i c t IV. Ongoing caseworkers
averaged 17 cases Statewide. D i s t r i c t II averaged 22 ongoing cases per
caseworker, and D i s t r i c t V had the lowest average caseload of 10 cases
per ongo i ng caseworker .
Since caseload averages alone do not provide a complete workload picture,
we also analyzed workloads using a weighting method similar to the system
used in New Mexico. The New Mexico system measures workload by the types
of cases caseworkers manage. New Mexico determined that the amount of
time required to work a case varied depending on the case goal. By
weighting cases according to the amount of time various types of cases
require, we determined that 19 percent of the caseworkers had caseloa'ds
that exceeded the maximum standard of the New Mexico case weighting
model. Almost 70 percent of these caseworkers are located i n D i s t r i c t s I
and II. In addition, several caseworkers had caseloads that were
significantly below the maximum standard. This indicates that in a l l
d i s t r i c t s some caseworkers may have workloads that could be increased to
he l p reduce other caseworkers ' excess i ve work l oads .
( 1) Child Protective Services i s a function of the DES Administration f o r Children, Youth
and Families ( ACYF). ACYF has six d i s t r i c t s : D i s t r i c t I- Maricopa County; D i s t r i c t
11- Pima County; D i s t r i c t III- Coconino, Yavapai , Navajo, and Apache Counties; D i s t r i c t
IV- Yuma, flohave, and La Paz Counties; D i s t r i c t V- Pinal and Gila Counties; and D i s t r i c t
VI- Cochi se, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, and Graham Counties.
Staffincl Ratiq ( see pages 19 through 26)
In addition to reviewing average caseloads, we also analyzed staffing
ratios. Unlike caseload size, a s t a f f i n g r a t i o considers the portion of
time caseworkers devoted to CPS a c t i v i t i e s . The Statewide average was 17
cases per Fu I I - T i me Equ i va l en t ( FTE emp I oyee . When ana l yzed by
d i s t r i c t , some d i s t r i c t s appear to have high staffing ratios compared to
the statewide average and professional standards. Staffing ratios also
are higher in some d i s t r i c t s due to vacant caseworker positions. For
example, D i s t r i c t I1 FTEs had the largest number of cases with 21 cases
per FTE. However, i f a l l positions were f i l l e d , each FTE would have had
18 cases. The low ratio of 15 cases per FTE in D i s t r i c t V would have
dropped to 13 cases per FTE i f a l l vacancies were f i l l e d . This pattern
was also evident when analyzing ratios for each type of caseworker. Our
analysis suggests that high staffing ratios may be in part the result of
CPSf i n a b i l i t y to f i l l current positions and disparities i n s t a f f
allocations among d i s t r i c t s .
I f CPS were to investigate cases designated as " appropriate for
investigation but not investigated," the staffing ratios would increase
in D i s t r i c t s I, I I, and V I . D i s t r i c t I I would have the greatest increase
as each of i t s intake FTEs would have to investigate 5 additional cases.
I f a l l positions were f i l l e d , the increase would be 4 additional cases
per FTE .
Distribution Of Caseg
In The CPS Svstern ( see pages 27 through 30)
Our review of active ongoing cases found that no single type of abuse was
the predominant cause for cases entering the system. Allegations of
minor or potential abuse accounted for 21 percent of the cases. Another
19 percent of the cases ( 389) a1 leged parents had not provided the
necessities of l i f e or protection for their children. Three additional
categories encompassing severe to moderate physical or sexual abuse and
medical or physical neglect accounted for another 40 percent ( 835) of the
cases we reviewed.
Once a case is transferred to ongoing case management status, the case
plan becomes an indicator of work intensity. Of the ongoing cases we
reviewed, 33 percent ( 812) had a Remain with Family case plan, and 25
percent ( 614) had a case plan of Return to Family. The remaining 42
percent ( 1,026) cases had out- of- home case plans such as Adopt ion,
Long- Term Foster Care, or Placement with a Relative.
Conclusions And Recornrnendation~
( see pages 35 t h r w 37)
Our analysis indicates that several steps need to be taken to determine
appropriate long- term staffing levels. Three significant l imitations
prohibited us from more completely addressing our statutory charge to
estimate long- term staffing needs for - investigating al l appropriate
reports. F i r s t , data about the number of cases that were ," appropriate
for investigation but not investigated" could not be documented
completely. Second, CPS lacks precise information about the amount of
staff time actual ly spent providing chi Id protective services. Although
we were able to obtain some of this information for our analysis, this
information is based largely on estimates and required extensive time and
travel to collect. Third, we were unable to identify any widely accepted
c r i t e r i a for determining optimum staffing levels. Our survey of other
states revealed a wide variety of methods for estimating staffing needs.
To determine appropriate staffing levels, CPS must establish a management
information system that provides accurate and reliable information about
key a c t i v i t i e s . ( See Chapter V, pages 31 through 34 for a discussion* of
management informat ion.) In addition, workload standards are necessary.
Establishing standards w i l l require a joint e f f o r t between CPS and the
Legislature.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I : NUsER AH] TYPES
OF m E m s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Volume Of Reports
HandledByCPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TByypePsr iOof r iRteyp. o. rts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Types Of Reports By Nature Of Complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER I I : CASELOAD SIZE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case load Size By Full- Time Caseworker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case load Size By TypeOf Caseworker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fol low Up O f D i s t r i c t I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER I l l : STAFFING RATIOS IN CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staffing Ratios InOctober 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staffing Ratios In The Activity Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FTEs Added In Mar i copa County Affect Staffing Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staffing Ratios l f Investigations Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison With Professional Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( con ' t )
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table Of CPS Report Disposition
By General Characteristics
By D i s t r i c t
Table of CPS Report Disposition
By P r i o r i t y Level
By D i s t r i c t
APPENDIX II : Techn i ca l Append i x
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sampling Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Analysis
Number And
Type Of Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Caseload Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staffing Ratios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Length O f
TimeInSyst e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Response Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES
FlGlRE 1 Location Of ACYF Districts. . . . . .
FI- 2 Disposition Of CPS Reports
August 1, 1990 - January 31, 1991 . .
Pane
A- 1
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
TABLE 10
TABLE 11
TABLE 12
Number Of CPS Reports
Between August 1, 1990 And
January 31, 1991 And Their
Disposition By P r i o r i t y Level . . . .
Number Of CPS Reports
Between August 1, 1990 And
January 31, 1991 And Their
Disposition By General Characteristics Of Abuse . . . . . .
Average Case load Size Of
Full- Time Caseworkers In
October 1990 By The Number
Of Children By D i s t r i c t And Statewide
Average Caseload Size Statewide
In October 1990 By Type Of Worker And By D i s t r i c t . . . . . . . . . . .
Results Of Case Weighting By D i s t r i c t And Statewide. . . . . .
October 1990 Staffing Ratios For
Cases Of A l l Types
Per CPS- Related FTE Counts . . . . .
Comparison Of Staffing Ratios
Of Cases In Each Activity Area Per FTE
By D i s t r i c t And Statewide. . . . . .
D i s t r i c t I
Comparison Of Staffing Ratios In
October 1990 and February 1991 . . .
Comparison Of October 1990 Intake
Caseworker Staffing Ratios To
Ratios Based On An Increased
Investigation Rate . . . . . . . . .
Distribution Of Ongoing Cases Based
On The Most Serious Finding
l n i t iat ing Each Case . . . . . . . .
Distribution Of A l l Ongoing Cases
Reviewed In October 1990 By Case Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Length Of Time Needed To Close CPS Cases
For A Selected Sample Of
Closed Cases . . . . . . . . . . . .
LlST OF TABLES ( con't
TABLE 13 CDPeSs cPrripi otiroint ys ALnedv eRlse. s po. ns. e . Ti. me. s . Of. .
TABLE 14 CPS Report Disposition By General
Characteristics Of Abuse For
Each D i s t r i c t Between August 1, 1990
And January 31, 1991 . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 15 CPS Report Disposition By P r i o r i t y
Level For Each D i s t r i c t Between
August 1, 1990 And January 31, 1991
TABLE 16 Description Of Allegations And
Response Times Of CPS By
P r i o r i t y Levels And Characteristics
TABLE 17 Abuse Type And Correspond i ng
Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . .
LlST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A Calculations Of CPS Caseworker Time By Activity . . . . . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT B Points Assigned TO
Survey Case Plans. . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a special analysis of the
workload of Child Protective Services within the Department of Economic
Secur i ty ( DES). This study was conducted in response to Session Laws
1990, Chapter 237, Section 21.
This report presents specific information requested by the Arizona State
Legislature and includes the number and types of reports received,
caseload size, caseload mix, and staffing ratios. The report also
presents other information not specifically requested but closely related
to the questions raised by Chapter 237.
Proclrarn Oraanization
And Functions
Chi Id Protective Services ( CPS) is a function of the DES Administration
for Children, Youth and Families ( ACYF). ACYF is responsible for
protecting children from several types of abuse, including emotional,
physical, and sexual abuse, and neglect. CPS staff throughout the State
receive reports of alleged abuse from a variety of sources: family
members, school o f f i c i a l s , law enforcement o f f i c i a l s , and others who may
suspect child abuse. According to ACYF records, CPS received more than
37,928 reports and investigated 20,028 reports during fiscal year 1990.
When an incident of abuse or neglect is reported, CPS staff screen ihe
report to determine i f i t is within their jurisdiction. I f so, the
report i s ranked for investigation according to i t s potential
seriousness. For example, in l i fe- threatening or emergency situations,
such as the death of a child or severe physical abuse, an investigation
must be initiated within 2 hours of the report. Reports that involve
less serious abuses that can become damaging, such as substandard care,
must be investigated within 1 week of the report. A CPS investigator
then determines the v a l i d i t y of the allegations and recommends
appropriate action. Such action may involve removing the child from the
home or i n i t i a t i n g services for the family.
Many of the reports received by CPS are closed within a few weeks of the
i n i t i a l report, and no further action is needed. However, cases that
cannot be resolved quickly are transferred to ongoing status for longer
term management. Ongoing cases are managed on the basis of case plans
that project a desired outcome. Typical case plans include remaining
with the family, returning to the family, adoption, long- term foster
care, and placement with a relative. CPS staff provide services to the
child, his or her natural family, and foster family or guardians that are
consistent with the objectives of the ongoing case plan. CPS reports
that, on average, i t managed more than 4,000 ongoing cases monthly during
fiscal year 1990.
Purpose Of
Auditor General Study
The Joint Legislative Oversight Comnittee on Child Protective Services
recomnended that the Auditor General conduct an audit of CPS staff
caseload size. The Oversight Comnittee on Child Protective Services was
established in August 1989 in response to a rapid increase in the number
of reports of child abuse and numerous concerns voiced by the public,
DES, and legislators regarding Arizona's child protective service
system. The Comnittee held several public hearings and met with DES
administrators to discuss these concerns.
One concern presented was that because of a significant increase in the
number of reports, CPS has been unable to investigate 100 percent of the
calls deemed appropriate for investigation. DES proposed a plan that
included a request for additional funding to hire more caseworkers to
achieve a 100 percent investigation rate. However, DES has been unable
to provide the Comnittee with caseload numbers and other v i t a l
s t a t i s t i c a l information. According to legislative s t a f f , timely
information about caseload size was d i f f i c u l t to obtain because CPS does
not have a computerized system for tracking the number of cases and
caseloads. Also, policies and procedures are not interpreted and applied
consistently from o f f i c e to office.
Although the Conrnittee agreed with the goal of achieving a 100 percent
rate of investigation for appropriate reports, without adequate
information they were unable to determine the amount of funding necessary
to reach this objective. In an e f f o r t to obtain information about
caseload size, the Committee recommended that the Auditor General conduct
an audit of CPS caseloads. This recommendation was incorporated into
House B i l l 2690, the Omnibus Child Protection Act, which passed in 1990.
Study SCwQ
And Methodology
The scope of our study is defined by Session Laws 1990, Chapter 237,
Section 21:
The auditor general shall conduct an audit of the number and type of
reports, case load size, case load mix and staffing ratios to ensure
that the department of economic security has sufficient staff to
investigate a l l appropriate referrals to child. protective services ....
The primary methodology for this study was a review of CPS case f i l e s .
We selected a s t a t i s t i c a l sample of 236 caseworkers Statewide and
reviewed cases that were open at any time during October 1990. We
reviewed case f i l e s at local offices in every d i s t r i c t . ( Figure 1, page
4, shows the locations of the six ACYF d i s t r i c t s . ) Our methodology
provided information on the number and type of reports, case load size,
case load mix and staffing ratios. Because of data limitations and the
lack of clear c r i t e r i a , we were unable to determine completely the number
of staff needed to ensure that a l l appropriate referrals are
investigated. These limitations are discussed more f u l l y on page 36.
FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF ACYF DISTRICTS
MWO
MACHE
~~ K
R JOHFS
f
ARIZONA
Because a significant number of new CPS staff were being hired in
D i s t r i c t I during the period of our review, we conducted a limited
follow- up review of February 1991 caseloads in that d i s t r i c t . The
information obtained from this follow- up review provides an i n i t i a l
indicator of the impact of new funding provided in fiscal year 1990- 91 on
CPS caseload size.
Finally, because the amount of time and e f f o r t required for each case
varies, we weighted a l l types of cases in order to compare workloads
among caseworkers and the d i s t r i c t s .
More detailed information about the methodology used in our study is
included in the Technical Appendix of this report.
The Auditor General and ' staff express appreciation to the Director and
staff of the Department of Economic Security for their cooperation and
assistance during this study.
CHAPTER I
NUMBER AND TYPES OF CPS REPORTS
Each month CPS handles thousands of reports of alleged child abuse or
neglect. To determine the number and types of these reports, we analyzed
the data in three ways: the number of reports that are investigated or
not investigated, the number of reports by p r i o r i t y , and the number of
reports by the type of complaint.
We obtained information about the number and type of reports from the
Child Protective Services Central Registry ( CPSCR). A l l reports of abuse
and neglect dating back to December 1985 are captured in thi. s automated
database. The Registry records the disposition of a l l reports and the
findings of resulting investigations. CPS classifies a l l allegations
into one of 23 types of abuse or neglect. ( For a complete l i s t i n g of
these categories, see Table 16 on page A- 10 of the Technical Appendix .)
Volume Of Reoorts
Handled Bv CPS
In the 6 months between August 1, 1990 and January 31, 1991, CPS received
18,113 reports of child abuse or neglect involving 30,804 children. The
18,113 reports do not correlate directly to 18,113 occurrences of child
abuse. Multiple reports may be made by different sources or even the
same source about one incident of abuse. For example, both the
physician and law enforcement o f f i c i a l s involved in a case may each f i l e
a report. According to CPS s t a f f , the reports range from valid l i f e
threats to false statements made by angry spouses involved in custody
battles.
Disposition of reoortg - Figure 2 ( page 8) i l lustrates the dispositions
of the 18,113 reports. Of the total number of reports, 52 percent were
investigated. Another 7 percent were considered appropriate for
investigation but, according to CPS s t a f f , were not assigned due to
concerns about the workload of investigative s t a f f . Disposition could
not be determined on 2 percent of the reports because a decision to
investigate had not been made or the information had not been entered on
the Central Registry. The remaining 39 percent of the reports were
deemed to be " information only."
REPORTS
APPROPRIATE F
INVESTIGATION
BUT NOT
1 NVESTIGATED
1270 or 7%
FIGURE 2
DISPOSITION OF CPS REPORTS
AUGUST 1,1990 - JANUARY 31, 1991
: A o /' REPORTS RECORDED \
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
7099 or 39%
REPORTS INVESTIGATED
9384 or 52%
REPORTS NOT
DISPOSED
360 or 2%
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of Child
Protective Services Central Registry monthly reports for August
1, 1990 through January 31, 1991.
CPS staff consider a report to be " information onlyn for several
reasons. Some reports can be handled by the police without CPS
involvement, and others do not require CPS investigation. For example,
cases involving runaways or those involving sexual abuse where the
perpetrator is outside the home ( and therefore not an immediate,
recurrent danger to the chi Id) are routinely designated as " information
only." Other reports are considered " information onlyt1 because CPS lacks
sufficient information to locate the family or pursue an investigation.
However, some cases classified as " information onlyw may be appropriate
for investigation. Several supervisors noted that they designate some
cases as " information only" rather than " appropriate for investigation
but not investigated" because they do not have enough staff to
investigate these reports. Because CPS supervisors typically do not
document their reasons for categorizing reports as " information only," we
were unable to determine the extent of this practice. Nevertheless,
inappropriately recording reports as " information only" instead of
" appropriate for investigation but not investigated" reduces the accuracy
of information needed to make service level and staffing decisions.
Remrts investigated - CPS has determined that at least one- third of the
reports received by February 1991 and investigated during t h i s f i s c a l
year are valid.(') This signifies that CPS found some type of abuse or
neglect in the home, although not necessarily the particular type alleged
in the report. Another 35 percent of the investigated reports were found
to be invalid or undetermined ( evidence was inconclusive to confirm or
refute the allegation). As of April 1991, the Central Registry contained
no information regarding investigative findings for the remaining nearly
one- third of reports.
Iyges Of Reports
Bv Priority
The 18,113 reports that CPS received from August 1, 1990 through
January 31, 1991, represent a wide range of allegations and associated
p r i o r i t y levels. CPS categorizes the twenty- three types of allegations
into four p r i o r i t y levels:
Priority One - life- threatening and/ or emergency situation
Priority Two - dangerous but not life- threatening
Priority Three - substandard care that is damaging
Priority Four - substandard care that cou Id become damaging
( 1 ) To obtain the most complete infonnation available about investigative findings, we
referred t o a f i s c a l year- to- date sumnary report rather than our six- month review of
monthly reports. However, this sumnary informati on i s s t i l l incomplete due to
untimely data entry. Thirty- two percent of the investigated reports did not have
investigative findings recorded.
Table 1 shows the distribution of these reports among the four p r i o r i t y
levels. I n t h i s table, placement in a p r i o r i t y level is determined by
the degree of seriousness of the allegation about any of the children
involved. ( For a similar analysis by d i s t r i c t , see d i s t r i c t totals in
Appendix I, page A- 3.) As expected, generally the higher the p r i o r i t y
level, the greater the proportion of cases investigated.
TABLE 1
NUMBER OF CPS REPORTS
BETWEEN AUGUST 1, 1990 AND JANUARY 31, 1991
AND THEIR DISPOSITION BY PRIORITY LEVEL
P r i o r i t y I nves- Info Not'lnves- Not Dis-
Leve l R e m r t d tigated t iqated( a) ~ osedb()
4 lL!% i 3,853 4.419 724
A l l P r i o r i t i e s 18.113 9.384 7.099 1 ,270
( a) Because t h i s infonnation was derived from composite information, we did not i d e n t i f y
the specific reports and the reasons they were not investigated. However, we spoke
with supervisors t o determine why reports, p a r t i c u l a r l y hi gh- pri o r i t y cases, may be
designated as appropriate f o r investigation but then not investigated. One example
c i t e d was that subsequent infonnation may become avai 1 able that would eliminate the
need f o r an investigation.
( b) Disposition i n f o n a t i o n about these reports i s not available on the Registry. Either
the supervisor had not made the decision to investigate the report or that decision
was not entered i n t o the Registry i n a timely manner.
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of Child
Protective Services Central Registry monthly reports for
August 1, 1990 through January 31, 1991.
Of Reoort~
Bv Nature Of Corn~ laint
Another way to view this information is to categorize reports according
to the general characteristics of the alleged abuse or neglect. Auditors
grouped cases with simi lar characteristics from the four p r i o r i t y
levels. For example, a l l three p r i o r i t y levels of physical abuse were
grouped together under the heading of " physical abuse." Table 2
indicates that the largest category ( 47 percent) of reports is " potential
or minor abuselneglect allegation^.^^ The next largest category ( 14
percent) of reports is " allegations of sexual abuse." ( For an analysis
by d i s t r i c t , see Appendix I, page A- 1 through A- 2.)
TABLE 2
NUMBER OF CPS REPORTS ~
BETWEEN AUGUST 1, 1990 AND JANUARY' 31, 1991
AND THEIR DISPOSITION
BY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ABUSE
Type of
Abuse
Inves- Info Not Inves- Not Dis-
Report4 tiaated Onlv t iaated posed( a)
Death of a Child
Dependent Chi l d( b)
Emo t i ona l Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Physical Abuse,
Severe to Moderate
Potential or Minor
Abuse/ Neglect
Neglect,
Severe to Moderate
Sexual Abuse
Other
A l l Types
( a) I n 2 percent o f the reports entered on the CPSCR i n t h i s timeframe, either the
supervisor had not made a decision about whether or not to investigate the reports,
or the decisions were not entered on the CPSCR i n a timely manner.
( b) Dependent children are those whose parents do not assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of
providing the necessities of l i f e or protection f o r t h e i r children because the
parents are unwilling, unable, or incapable due to dysfunctional problems.
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of Chi Id
Protective Services Central Registry monthly reports for August
1, 1990 through January 31, 1991.
CHAPTER II
CASELOAD SIZE
Session Laws 1990, Chapter 237, Section 21 directed the Auditor General
to determine the caseload size for CPS caseworkers. For purposes of this
study, the size of the caseload refers to the total number of cases
actual ly managed by a caseworker for a given time frame. The size of a
caseload was determined in three ways: average caseload for full- time
caseworkers, average caseload by type of caseworker and weighted
caseloads, which reflect the degree of d i f f i c u l t y of the various types of
cases.
Caseload Size By
Full- Time Caseworker
To determine the average caseload size for full- time caseworkers, we
identified the caseworkers(') in our sample that perform CPS casework
a c t i v i t i e s on a full- time basis. In our sample there were a total of 201
caseworkers Statewide that perform intake and/ or ongoing case management
a c t i v i t i e s full- time, including 19 contract workers. ( For a discussion
of the methodology applied, see page A- 11 of the Technical Appendix.) As
i l l u s t r a t e d in Table 3, page 14, the size of the average caseload varies
by d i s t r i c t . D i s t r i c t II has the highest average caseload of 19 cases
per caseworker. D i s t r i c t s I l l and V have the lowest average caseload of
15 cases per caseworker. Although the average caseload Statewide is 17,
23 caseworkers managed 25 or more cases, and two managed 40 cases.
( 1) Contract caseworkers were counted i n the same manner as ACYF employees. Therefore,
the information reported includes contract caseworkers' caseloads.
TABLE 3
AVERAGE CASELOAD SIZE OF FULL- TIME CASEWORKERS
IN OCTOBER 1- BY THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN
PER CASELOAD BY DlSTRlCT AND STATEWIDE
Locat ion
D i s t r i c t I
I I
I I I
I v
v
v I
Average Number
Average of Chi ldren Per
I; aseload Size Case l oad
Statewide 17 3 7
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of October 1990
sample of CPS caseworkers.
A second factor to consider in reviewing caseload size is the number of
children served. The average number of children served Statewide per
full- time caseworker is 37. As illustrated in Table 3, the average total
number of children per caseload varies by d i s t r i c t . D i s t r i c t II, with 42
children per caseload, served the highest average number of children.
D i s t r i c t IV, with 31 children per caseload, served the lowest average
number of children. Some caseworkers managed an excessively large number
of children on their October 1990 caseloads when compared to the average:
32 had caseloads of 50 to 74 children,
six had caseloads of 75 to 99 children, and
one had a caseload of 102 children.
Caseload Size By
lype Of Caseworker
Because an overall average of full- time caseworkers does not provide
information by type of caseworker and does not include caseworkers that
perform CPS duties part time, we performed an analysis by type of
caseworker. We defined four types of caseworkers: intake, ongoing,
mixed ( those that perform both intake and ongoing case a c t i v i t i e s ) , and
other mix ( those that may perform intake, ongoing, or both a c t i v i t i e s in
addition to other ACYF duties such as day care licensing).(') Our sample
of 236 caseworkers includes 53 intake only caseworkers, 106 ongoing only
caseworkers, 44 mixed caseworkers and 33 other mix caseworkers. Table 4
presents the average caseload size by type of caseworker.
TABLE 4
AVERAGE CASELOAD SlZE STATEWIDE IN OCTOBER 1990
BY TYPE OF WORKER AND BY DISTRICT
T v ~ eo f Worker
lntake Only
Ongoing Only
Mi xed
lntake Cases
Ongoing Cases
Other Mix
lntake Cases
Ongoing Cases
Averaae Case load Si ze( a)
D i s t r i c t
Statewide - I - I I - 1 1 1 I V ! L - V I
( a) Blanks appear i n Table 4 because averages cannot be determined f o r a l l categories
f o r the f 01 1 owing reasons :
There were no caseworkers drawn i n our sample from the d i s t r i c t f o r t h i s
p a r t i c u l a r category.
There was an i n s u f f i c i e n t number of caseworkers i n our sample to make
generalizations at the d i s t r i c t level .
Furthennore, a Statewide average of intake cases managed by other mix caseworkers i s
misleading because most of these cases are managed by D i s t r i c t V I other mix
caseworkers. Therefore, we do not report an average f o r t h i s category.
( b) Other mix caseworkers i n D i s t r i c t I1 had higher caseloads than caseworkers i n
D i s t r i c t s 111, IV and VI, thereby producing an average caseload Statewide of 10
cases.
Source: Office of the Auditor General, s t a f f analysis of October 1990
sample of CPS caseworkers.
( 1) I n the rural d i s t r i c t s , caseworkers with intake r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may also be
required t o be on- call f o r n i g h t or weekend emergencies.
Follow Up
Of District I-Because
a significant number of new caseworkers were being hired in
D i s t r i c t I during the period of our review, we conducted a limited
follow- up review of February 1991 caseloads in that d i s t r i c t . The
addition of new caseworker positions i n D i s t r i c t I lowered caseload
size. The results of the February 1991 analysis showed that the average
size of a caseload decreased by 3 cases per caseworker:
Intake Caseworker - 17 cases in October 1990 decreased to 14 cases in
February 1991
Onaoina Caseworker - 18 cases in October 1990 decreased to 15 cases in
February 1991
Although hiring additional caseworkers has i n i t i a l l y reduced caseloads,
ACYF administrators anticipate that caseloads may increase. According to
ACYF administrators, hiring additional caseworkers w i l l allow them to
investigate cases that are currently not being investigated due to a lack
of sufficient s t a f f .
Case Weiahtinq
Because caseload averages alone do not provide a complete picture of CPS
workload, we included a case weighting component in our analysis. Many
factors influence the amount of time required to manage a case.
Recognizing these factors and incorporating them in a case weighting
model allows us to assess the relative amount of time or work each
caseworker's caseload requires. Applying the model to the October 1990
caseworker sample, we determined that 19 percent of the caseworkers
exceeded the model's maximum caseload standard.
Several factors may contribute to making one case more d i f f i c u l t to
manage than another case. For example, one case may consist of only one
chi Id, whi le another case may consist of several chi ldren. Furthermore,
cases involving the courts reportedly require more time than those that
do not involve the courts because of required court appearances,
additional parties to coordinate with, and required paperwork.
Therefore, two caseworkers with the same size caseload may have a
considerably different workload.
To ascertain how these factors influence workload, we applied the case
weighting method used by New Mexico's Human Services Department, Social
Services Division.(') ( For a detailed discussion of the New Mexico
model, why i t was selected, and how i t was applied to Arizona caseloads,
see Technical Appendix, page A- 16.) Using the New Mexico model we
analyzed case plans and determined a rank order based on the amount of
time one type of plan required compared to a Return Home case plan
( determined to be the most time- intensive case plan). Each case plan was
assigned a point value based on i t s ranking. The point values for a l l
case plans were totaled for individual caseloads to determine a weighted
case load .
New Mexico also established a maximum point value of 2,000 points per
caseload. By applying the point values to individual caseloads, New
Mex i co can de t e rm i ne wh i ch caseworkers have excess i ve case loads based on
the amount of time their respective cases require.
When modified to reflect Arizona caseworker opinions and CPS case plans,
19 percent of the caseworkers exceeded the 2,000 maximum point value
established by New Mexico. Using the 2,000 point cap, Table 5 shows that
44 caseworkers had workloads exceeding 2,000 points in October 1990. The
majority of these caseworkers are in D i s t r i c t s 1 ( 15 caseworkers) and I1
( 15 caseworkers) . F i ve caseworkers had work loads that exceeded 3,000
points. Caseworkers exceeding the cap have an unusually high number of
cases, a high number of the most time- intensive cases, or both.
( 1) Although we found the New Mexico model a useful tool to assess workload, we are not
reconrnending that Arizona adopt this method without further study. CPS administrators
feel that the model needs to incorporate additional factors to better accomnodate
Ari zona condi tions and the CPS system.
TABLE 5
RESULTS OF CASE WEIGHTING BY DISTRICT AND STATEWIDE
Number of CPS Caseworkers Meeting Percentaae of Maximum Standard
Less than More than
D i s t r i c t 50X 5 0 - 7 4 1 75- 89% 90- 100% 100%
Statewide
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of October 1990
sample of CPS caseworkers and the application of the New Mexico
case weighting model.
New Mexico staff note that their goal is to keep caseloads below the
2,000 point cap rather than having every caseworker at the maximum point
value. Because of this, they expect to have the majority of their
caseworkers in the 50 to 90 percent range. A New Mexico CPS
administrator reports that their average weighted caseload is 14 cases
per caseworker. The average weighted caseload would therefore not exceed
1,400 points or 70 percent of the cap. They also expect that there w i l l
be some caseworkers with point values below 50 percent of the cap. New
caseworkers with fewer and less d i f f i c u l t cases would l i k e l y be in this
category. Table 5 indicates that a l l Arizona d i s t r i c t s might be able to
increase some caseworkers1 workloads to help reduce the excessive
workloads of others.
CHAPTER Ill
STAFFING RATIOS IN CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
In addition to a review of the average size of CPS caseloads, Chapter 237
required that we review staffing ratios. Unlike caseload size, a
staffing ratio considers the portion of time caseworkers devote to CPS
a c t i v i t i e s . ( ' ) For a l l Full- Time Equivalent ( FTE) caseworkers in our
sample, we calculated two sets of staffing ratios. The f i r s t set of
ratios is based on the positions actually funded, including contract
caseworkers and vacancies. The second set of ratios is based on the
positions that are actually f i l l e d '( including contract s t a f f ) and
excludes vacant positions. We also calculated the same two sets of
ratios for the subgroups of intake and ongoing FTE caseworkers. An
additional analysis determines what staffing ratios would be i f CPS
intake caseworkers were to investigate a l l cases classified as
" appropriate for investigation." Finally, we compared the October 1990
ratios to professional standards.
Our staffing ratio analysis is based upon a s t a t i s t i c a l sample of a l l
caseworkers in the State, including vacant positions.( 2) As a whole, the
caseworkers selected managed 3,904 cases in October 1990. We obtained a
staffing ratio by comparing those 3,904 cases to the number of FTEs.
Because many CPS caseworkers per form both i n t ake and ongo i ng act i v i t i es
or, in same cases, additional non- CPS duties, caseworkers were poll'ed
( 1) To develop meaningful data on actual average caseload sizes, we subdivided caseworkers
i n t o groups by type of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ( intake, ongoing, mixed, and other mix). Our
analysis of s t a f f i n g r a t i o s then factors the time any caseworker spends i n either
intake or ongoing a c t i v i t i e s and includes that time i n an aggregate intake FTE count
and an aggregate ongoing FTE count.
( 2) For purposes o f t h i s review, contract caseworkers are included. These s t a f f are not
d i r e c t l y funded positions and, therefore, are not considered FTEs i n the conventional
sense. However, contract caseworkers provide a considerable portion of case
management services and must be included to give a complete picture of s t a f f i n g .
Contracted caseworkers are funded from the ACYF Children Services special l i n e item
appropriation, and used i n a l l d i s t r i c t s except D i s t r i c t I.
individual ly to determine how they spent their time. This informat ion
provided an estimate of the percentage of time caseworkers spent on CPS
services in each a c t i v i t y area. ( For a more detai led description of the
methodology, see the Technical Appendix, page A- 12.)
The October 1990 sample included 236 caseworkers with a caseload, 18
vacancies, and four new hires with no caseload. While this constitutes
258 positions, due to part- time positions and positions that entail
responsibilities outside CPS case management, these positions equate to
only 244 FTEs performing CPS functions. Of the 244 FTEs in our sample,
contract staff account for 28 FTEs. 0
Staffina Ratios
In October 199Q
The Statewide average number of cases per f i l led FTE was 17 in October
1990. I f CPS were f u l l y staffed, including contract caseworkers, the
staffing r a t i o would decrease to 16 cases per FTE. Table 6 indicates
that staffing ratios at the d i s t r i c t level, including intake and ongoing
cases, range from a low of 13 cases per funded FTE to a high of 18 cases
per funded FTE. The staffing ratio of cases per FTE f i l l e d with a
caseworker ready to manage cases is higher than the ratio of funded FTEs
in a1 I d i s t r i c t s except ~ i s t r i c tI V .
D i s t r i c t
TABLE 6
OCTOBER 1990 STAFFING RATIOS FOR
CASES OF ALL TYPES
PER CPS- RELATED FTE COUNTS
Cases Per Funded Cases Per F i l l e d
FTE FTE
Statewide 16 17
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of CPS staffing
patterns and caseioads based on the October 1990 sample of
caseworkers .
Staffina Ratiq~
In The Activitv Area?
While the number of cases per FTE in general terms is important, the
staffing ratios for intake and ongoing functions are more meaningful for
comparison against professional standards. Because many caseworkers
outside the larger metropolitan regions of the State perform both intake
investigations and ongoing case management services, those FTEs s p l i t
their time and, therefore, a portion of their time is counted in each
a c t i v i t y area.
Our analysis shows that Statewide in October 1990 each f i l l e d FTE
hand l i ng i n take cases managed 17 cases and each f i l I ed FTE hand I i ng
ongoing cases managed 18 cases. I f CPS were f u l l y staffed, the staffing
ratios would decrease to 16 cases for both types of FTE. Table 7
i l l u s t r a t e s the variances between the funded FTEs and those FTEs that are
actually f i lied with caseworkers ready to manage cases. FTEs managing
intake cases in D i s t r i c t V manage an additional 5 cases because of
vacancies. FTEs managing ongoing cases i n D i s t r i c t I I manage 4
additional cases because of vacancies. These differences suggest that in
some d i s t r i c t s improved recruitment and retention might be used in lieu
of additional positions to lower the ratio of cases per FTE. For
example, we found that there were sufficient positions in D i s t r i c t I to
operate at 16 cases for each FTE managing ongoing cases. However, in
October 1990, due to vacancies and new hires without caseloads, FTEs
hand I i ng ongoing cases managed 18 cases. The agency's goal of 17 cases
per ongoing FTE would have been met i f D i s t r i c t I had fewer vacancies.(')*
( 1) We did not compare agency goals and the calculated staffing ratios for intake FTEs
because the agency goal i s based on cases per intake caseworker per month, and the
sample analysis was based on the Jotal number of cases per intake caseworker per
month. Therefore, a direct comparison could not be made.
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF STAFFING RATIOS OF CASES IN EACH
ACTIVITY AREA PER FTE BY DISTRICT AND STATEWIDE
Intake Cases Ongo i na Cases
Per Funded Per Fi l led Per Funded Per Fi l led
D i s t r i c t I n t ake FTE Intake FTE Onaoina FTE Onsoina FTE
Statewide 16 17 16 18
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis of CPS staffing
patterns and caseloads based on the October 1990 sample of
caseworkers.
FTEs Added In Marima County
Affect Staffina Rati-
Additional caseworker positions in D i s t r i c t I have changed the staffing
ratios for that d i s t r i c t . We realized that October ratios in Maricopa
County would be changing due to the addition of 38 caseworker positions
funded for fiscal year 1991. By October 1990 these FTEs were only
beginning to be phased in. To obtain a more up- to- date picture, we
calculated the staffing ratios for D i s t r i c t I based on February 1991
caseloads and s t a f f . The number of cases dropped to 13 per funded FTE.
( For a comparison between the October 1990 and February 1991 ratios for
D i s t r i c t I, see Table 8, page 23.)
TABLE 8
DISTRICT I
COMPARISON OF STAFFING RATIOS IN
OCTOBER 1990 AND FEBRUARY 1991
Cases Per Funded FTE Cases Per F i l l e d FTE
October 1990 February 1991 October 1990 February 1991
A l l cases 16 13
Ongo i ng cases 16 14
Intake cases 16 13
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff review of cases and
staffing patterns based on the October 1990 and February 1991
caseworker sample for D i s t r i c t I.
Although additional positions have i n i t i a l l y reduced staffing ratios,
ACYF administrators, anticipate ratios may increase. According to ACYF
administrators, additional caseworkers w i l l allow them to investigate
reports that are currently not being investigated due to the lack of
sufficient s t a f f .
Staffina Ratios If
lnvestiaations Increasecj
As noted in Chapter I, CPS does not investigate 100 percent of the
reports i t s caseworkers consider appropriate for investigation. I f CPS
were to investigate those cases currently designated as " appropriate for
investigation but not investigated," the October 1990 staffing ratios
would increase.(') Table 9 ( see page 24) indicates that the number of
cases per FTE would increase in D i s t r i c t s I, II, and V I . The number of
cases per FTE would increase the most in D i s t r i c t l i . Each intake FTE
( 1) Because we suspect not a l l cases appropriate f o r investigation are being c l a s s i f i e d as
such, t h i s analysis provides a minimum expected increase. As noted i n Chapter I,
interviews with u n i t supervisors indicated that some supervisors c l a s s i f y cases as
" information on1 y" rather than " appropriate f o r investigation but not investigated."
The analysis presented i n Table 9 and discussed i n t h i s section i s based only on the
number of cases that are s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d by supervisors as " appropriate f o r
investigation but not investigated."
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF OCTOBER 1990 INTAKE CASEWORKER
STAFFING RATIOS TO RATIOS BASED ON AN
INCREASED INVESTIGATION RATE
Intake Cases Per Funded FTE Intake Cases Per Fi l led FTE
D i s t r i c t Qctober 199Q Increased Rate October 1990 Increased Rate
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff analysis based on October
1990 staffing patterns and caseloads.
would have to investigate an additional 5 cases; i f completely staffed,
the increase would be 4 additional cases per FTE.
Com~ arison With
Professional Standards
To determine i f Arizona CPS staffing ratios are comparable to those in
other states and professional standards, we surveyed several states and
reviewed the Child Welfare League of America ( CWLA) standards. However,
we were unable to develop meaningful comparisons between Arizona CPS
staffing ratios and those of other states because of varying operationil
methods and recordkeeping systems. Therefore, we were limited to a
compa r i son to CWLA standards .
We selected 16 states(') for our survey because of their location ( the
western/ southwestern United States), because their client populations are
similar in number to those in Arizona, or because these states have been
( 1) The 16 states surveyed were California, Colorado. Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana.
Maryland. Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, and Washington.
cited as having good CPS programs. Interviews with CPS staff in these
states indicated that comparisons would be d i f f i c u l t to make. The
following includes a few of the reasons inhibiting program comparison:
CaseDefinition - Arizona generally defines a case in terms of the
family unit. However, adoption cases and some independent living
cases are generally defined in terms of the individual child. In
comparison, eight of the states surveyed define a case in terms of
the family and three states define a case in terms of the child.
Five states define a case in terms of both methods. For example, in
Utah cases are considered in terms of the family when investigated,
but i f the allegation is substantiated, the case is then defined in
terms of the chi Id. In Washington State cases are also defined in
terms of the child i f the child is in an out of home placement but
in terms of the family i f the child remains at home.
Unit of Measurement for Standards - Ar i zona standards are measured
by the number of cases per intake or ongoing caseworker. Ten states
also measure standard,^ using the number of cases per caseworker.
However, the recommended standard number of cases varies
considerably among states. For example, Kentucky has a standard of
25 cases per caseworker regardless of a c t i v i t y . California has four
different caseload standards, each based on the type of case. Two
states have a point value/ case weighting standard, two measure
standards by the number of hours and type of a c t i v i t y , and two
reported having no standards.
8 Caseloads bv Type of Caseworker - Because we wanted to compare
Arizona caseloads for intake, ongoing, mixed, and other mix
caseworkers, we requested caseload information for these types of
caseworkers. Only four states were able to provide this
information, and three offered estimates. The remaining states did
not have this information readily available or were unable to
prepare i t . In addition, three states have county- based CPS
programs and do not maintain staffing and caseload information at a
statewide level.
Because we were unable to make meaningful comparisons among states, for
comparative purposes, we were limited to using the standards recommended
by CWLA. The CWLA recomnends a standard of 12 intake investigations per
caseworker per month. Based on the October 1990 staffing ratios, a l l
d i s t r i c t s would have exceeded this intake standard even i f CPS had been
completely staffed ( see Table 7, page 22). When vacancies are factored
into the staffing ratio, some d i s t r i c t s exceeded the standard by several
cases. D i s t r i c t V intake FTEs managed twice as many cases as the
recomnended CWLA standard.
Comparing Arizona CPS staffing ratios against the CWLA standard for
ongoing FTEs, it appears that most d i s t r i c t s have sufficient positions to
meet the standard. CWLA recomnends 17 active cases per month per ongoing
caseworker. With no vacancies CPS meets this standard in a l l d i s t r i c t s
but D i s t r i c t I I . Considering vacant positions, D i s t r i c t I exceeded the
standard by 1 case per FTE in October 1990, and D i s t r i c t I I exceeded the
standard by 8 cases.
CHAPTER IV
THE DISTRIBUTION OF CASES IN THE CPS SYSTEM
Session Laws 1990, Chapter 237, Section 21 directed the Auditor General
to review the mix of CPS cases. To e f f e c t i v e l y characterize how the
system works, t h i s review provides the following descriptive analyses of
active cases:
A proportional breakout of the number o f active intake and ongoing
cases each month
An analysis of the investigative findings that brought cases into
ongoing case management services
An analysis of the October 1990 case plan goals for active ongoing
cases
Although our sample of cases active in October 1990 i s not a s t a t i s t i c a l
sample, i t does constitute over one- half of the 6,907 cases that ACYF
estimates were active during that month.
P r m r t i o n Of Intake
A- KJ
Approximately two- thirds of the cases active in October 1990 that we
reviewed were ongoing cases, and approximately one- third of these cases
were intake investigations. Although our analyses reviewed active cases
f o r only one month, ACYF information indicates a monthly volume of CPS
cases with the r a t i o of two active ongoing cases to one intake
investigation. It i s important to note that while the ongoing cases are
primarily the same cases that remain active from month to month, the
majority of the intake investigative cases each month are new. Hence,
annually more investigations are handled than ongoing cases. ACYF
estimates that 20 percent of a l l reports investigated advance to ongoing
case status.
Finding Of lnvestiaationg
Resultina In Onaoina Caseg
A broad range of investigative findings(') can i n i t i a t e an ongoing case.
No single investigative finding was found to be the reason precipitating
the majority of the ongoing cases we reviewed. Although minor or
potential abuse or neglect and dependent(*) children were the cause of
more ongoing cases than the other categories, findings were distributed
f a i r l y evenly among categories of abuse. Table 10 shows the distribution
of ongoing cases based on the most serious i n i t i a l finding in each case.
TABLE 10
DISTRIBUTION OF ONGOING CASES BASED ON THE
MOST SERIOUS FINDING INITIATING EACH CASE
Findina l n i t i a t i n a Casg
Minor or Potential Abuse/ Neglect
Dependent Ch i l d
Physical Abuse, Severe to Moderate
Sexual Abuse, Severe to Moderate
Medical or Physical Neglect, Severe to Moderate
Lack of Supervision
Undetermined or Invalid Findings
Emotional Abuse
Other
Death of a Child
A l l Cases Reviewed
Number of Percentage
Onqoina Cases of Total
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff f i l e review of CPS cases:
As Table 10 i l l u s t r a t e s , some cases with undetermined or invalid
investigative findings are transferred to . ongoing status. A caseworker
involved with these families may be aware of potential problems that
preventive services might address or that may need to be monitored even
though the alleged abuse or neglect is not apparent at the time of the
investigation. According to one caseworker, this is often true with
( 1) This analysis i s based on the most serious finding o f abuse or neglect against any of
the children involved. Although multiple abuses on multiple children may have been
documented, the case i s grouped by the most serious finding on that report.
( 2) Dependent children are those whose parents do not assume the responsibility of
providing the necessities of l i f e or protection for their children because the parents
are unwi 11 ing, unable, or incapable due to dysfunctional problems.
al legat ions of physical neglect. The consequences of neglect may not be
physically evident u n t i l the situation has become serious enough for the
chi Id to be diagnosed medically as " Failure to Thrive". Parenting ski l Is
training or other services may be offered on a voluntary basis. I f the
family accepts those services, the case i s transferred to ongoing status.
Case Plan Goals
Of Onaoina Cases
According to the ACYF Program Administrator, once a case in transferred
to ongoing case management status, the importance of p r i o r i t y codes
decreases. For ongoing cases, the case plan is a better indicator of the
type of case and what services may be required. Therefore, the case plan
can be used as an indicator of work intensity.(')
We documented case plan goals of over one- half the ongoing cases CPS
estimates were active in October 1990. ( For a description of the case
p Ian goals , see page A- 15 of the Techn i ca l Append i x . ) A l though a case
may involve multiple children w i t h d i f f e r e n t case plans, each c h i l d has
only one case p Ian. Of the 2,452 cases we reviewed , 205 had more than
one case plan, but for the purpose of obtaining a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
cases are grouped by the most time- intensive case plan for the caseworker
as determined by our Statewide survey of caseworker^.(^) ( For a
discussion of the Statewide survey and the results, see the Technical
Appendix, pages A- 18 through A- 20.) In a hypothetical case example
involving two children relinquished by their natural mother, each c h i l d
has a d i f f e r e n t case plan goal. Each chi Id also has a d i f f e r e n t fathe'r.
One c h i l d has a father who wishes to work for the return o f h i s c h i l d to
him. The other c h i l d i s to be placed in an adoptive home. This example
would be grouped under the case plan Return to Family because the point
value of that plan i s greater than that of adoption. Table 11, page 30,
shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of a l l ongoing cases by the most work- intensive
case plan.
( 1 ) Case plans are the indicators used i n the New Mexico case weighting model. See the
analysis of weighted caseloads on page 16.
( 2) Any other case plans involved i n the 205 documented multiple case plan cases are not
reflected i n this grouping. Therefore, these results cannot be assumed to be the
demographic breakout of case plans for a1 1 the children included.
TABLE 11
DISTRIBUTION OF ALL ONGOING CASES REVIEWED
IN OCTOBER 1990 BY CASE PLAN
Case Plan Goal
Remain with Family
Return to Family
Long- Term Foster Care
Interstate Compact Placed Children
Adopt i on
Severance and Adopt i on
Placement with a Relative
Legal Guardianship
Independent Living
Total
Number
of Cases
Percent age
of Total
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff f i l e review of CPS cases.
CHAPTER V
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
During our review of the CPS workload, we observed problems with the
information maintained by ACYF about Child Protective Services. The
Chi Id Protective Services Central Registry ( CPSCR), a system designed to
track reports of abuse or neglect but not cases receiving services does
not provide data needed for estimating workload. Although some CPSCR
data can be used as an indicator of intake staffing requirements, there
are problems with the quality of this data. To date, manual counts of
active cases and clients served have been the only source of workload
information. However, we also found discrepancies i- n manual case counts
submitted to the central office. Similar problems may reduce the
usefulness of the new ACYF automated data system.
CPSCR Data
Is Limited
A t the present time, the ACYF automated data systems provide no direct
information for measuring CPS workload. Although the CPSCR tracks the
number of reports and their results, i t does not combine duplicate
reports about the same incident or family into cases. The system also
does not track any information about the reports after an investigation
is completed so i t cannot provide information about ongoing services. In
addition, CPSCR data accuracy is l i m i ted due to classification probl& ns
and i ncons i st en t cod i ng .
Shortcomings as a measurement of workload - CPSCR data cannot be used to
measure CPS caseloads because the CPSCR only records reports, thei r
disposition, and the results of investigations. Caseload is measured by
the number of cases investigated or managed by a CPS caseworker.
Further, some of the reports recorded on the CPSCR are multiple calls
involving the same case. A single incident reported by a family member,
a school o f f i c i a l , and a physician is recorded as three separate reports
on the CPSCR. Thus, CPSCR data can not be used to count CPS
investigations. The number of reports investigated would be an
overstatement of the number of intake cases actually investigated by CPS
workers.
31
CPS ongoing staff workloads are affected by the number of cases
transferred to ongoing status. Although the system tracks whether or not
reports result in an ongoing case, this data is also of limited use
because of the problem of multiple reports of a single case. Thus,
Registry data does not provide a reliable basis for estimating the number
of reports that become unique ongoing cases managed by CPS caseworkers.
Despite i t s limitations as a basis for measuring workload, the Registry
provides reasonably accurate information about the number and type of
reports received and is the only centralized source of informat ion about
the number of reports that are investigated. Thus, we were able to use
CPSCR data for these two purposes. ( See Chapter I, page 7.)
Classification ~ robleng - During f i e l d interviews, we identified
inconsistencies in the manner in which some reports are classified by CPS
s t a f f . One important inconsistency is in the use of the " for information
onlyw and " appropriate for investigation but not investigatedn
categories. Supervisors acknowledge that some reports classified " for
information only1' would have been investigated i f staff were available.
One CPS report notes that the percentage of reports recorded as
appropriate for investigation dropped 12 percent between fiscal years
1987 and 1988, while the number of reports recorded as " information onlyM
increased by an unspecified amount. We were unable to determine the
extent of this problem because CPS supervisors do not typically document
why they categorize reports as " information only." However, these
inconsistencies in the classification of reports lessen confidence in the
system's use as a complete means for measuring potential CPS
investigative workload.
Inconsistent coding - We also observed problems with inconsistent coding
of information. For example, we identified cases which were miscoded as
being " closedM after an intake investigation, when these cases had
actual ly been transferred to ongoing status. One supervisor noted that
he routinely coded cases in this manner. This type of miscoding affects
CPS1 a b i l i t y to accurately count the number of reports that result in
ongo i ng cases.
Case Counts
Contain Discrepancieg
Since the CPSCR was not designed to be a complete source of information
about workload, manual case count data must be used as a supplemental
source of information. Case count sheets, completed monthly, are added
together manually to determine the total number of active cases each
month. The case count sheets provided a starting point for our review.
As part of that review we verified the counts with CPS staff and their
supervisors and discovered the following discrepancies:
Some workers recorded a l l children in the family as their caseload,
others recorded only the chi ldren di rect ly served.
Some offices inappropriately transferred intake cases to ongoing
status. One office recorded intake cases open on the last day of the
month as both intake and ongoing cases regardless of the fact that
the case a c t i v i t y was not that of an ongoing case, Another office in
the same d i s t r i c t automatically transferred a l l intake investigations
open longer than 21 days to ongoing status. In both instances these
actions i n f l a t e case counts.
In one office, a worker with responsibility for both intake and
ongoing cases recorded a l l cases handled as ongoing cases.
Closed cases are incorrectly included on the end- of- the- month case
counts, thereby distorting end- of- the- month counts. Although errors
may be corrected by the end of the following month, new errors
continue to reduce the r e l i a b i l i t y of the monthly case counts. These
errors are particularly confusing when monthly reports are compared,
because the case count at the end of one month does not match the
count at the beginning of the next month.
Although we did not quantify the extent of these problems, their
existence raises questions about the accuracy of CPS case counts.
Potential Data Problems
In New Information Svstem
The types of problems with policy interpretation and follow through that
we observed may also l i m i t the usefulness of the new ACYF data system,
ASSIST, which is intended to provide better information about child
protective service workloads as well as perform other ACYF functions.
These problems appear to result from the lack of a we1 I- defined pol icy
about how data should be recorded, inadequate training, and ineffective
supervisory review. Unless ACYF ensures more consistent, accurate data
col lect ion, the use of ASSIST may result in simi lar informat ion problems.
Although we did not attempt to definitively trace the causes of these
problems, several possible reasons became apparent during our f i l e
review. We found that CPS staff differed in their understanding of how
information should be recorded. Although CPS staff were able to
articulate t h e i r understanding of how they should handle data, not a l l
shared the same understanding. Staff also noted that caseworkers have
not been given sufficient training to help them record information about
cases consistently and accurately. Finally, the nature of many errors,
such as the inclusion of inactive cases in case counts, indicates that
supervisors did not always check the reports submitted by their staff and
follow up on them, thus eliminating an important control over the
accuracy of information.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
How many s t a f f are needed to investigate a l l appropriate reports of child
abuse? Our review of CPS workloads found that this question cannot be
f u l l y answered because key information i s currently unavailable. We were
able to develop some workload estimates as part of the review; however,
this information i s too limited t o serve as the basis for completely
determining CPS s t a f f i n g needs. ACYF needs to take several steps to
compile the information needed for establishing s t a f f i n g levels.
Workload Analysis Provide
Limited Staffina- Estimates
By reviewing case f i l e s at CPS offices throughout the State, our
methodology enabled us to document reliable estimates of CPS workloads
for October 1990. We were also able t o i d e n t i f y certain case management
requirements by using a case weighting model and applying professional
organization standards to the workloads identified. This analysis
i d e n t i f i e s a number of considerations for evaluating CPS s t a f f i n g needs.
CPS's a b i l i t y to recruit and retain caseworkers d i r e c t l y affects
caseloads. We found that f i l l i n g a l l vacant positions would have
reduced intake caseloads by 6 percent and ongoing case loads by 11
percent in October 1990. ( A recent WA study noted that CPS had a
Statewide turnover rate of 14 percent which was comparable to the
average turnover rate f o r a l l State employees. However, some
d i s t r i c t s had considerably higher rates for specific types of
caseworkers.)
When s t a f f i n g ratios are compared to professional standards, i t
appears CPS has a greater need for additional intake s t a f f than
ongoing s t a f f . CPS s t a f f i n g requirements for ongoing cases in most
d i s t r i c t s appear to be adequately addressed through the use of
contract caseworkers and full- time s t a f f . Thus, ACYF may choose to
transfer full- time ongoing caseworkers to intake a c t i v i t i e s .
Our analysis also indicates that s t a f f i n g disparities exist among
ACYF d i s t r i c t s and offices. These disparities could be addressed by
reallocating positions and transferring s t a f f among d i s t r i c t s and
o f f ices.
Contract staff accounted for 11 percent of the FTEs in our sample.
CPS administrators interpret their statutes as prohibiting them from
assigning intake cases to contract staff or transferring contracted
caseworkers to intake positions. Consequently, this reduces CPS's
a b i l i t y to equalize caseloads through i t s use of contract
caseworkers. Therefore, the Legislature may wish to increase ACYF
f l e x i b i l i t y by creating full- time State positions from the funding
now being used for contract workers.
However, our review methodology produced information that is limited to a
specific time frame and, therefore, does not provide a basis for
estimating long- term staffing needs for investigating a l l appropriate
reports. In developing our analysis, we encountered three significant
limitations:
Data about the number of cases that were appropriate for
investigation but not investigated could not be f u l l y documented.
Thus, a key element for determining the number of staff needed
remains unavailable.
ACYF lacks information about the amount of time staff spend in
actually providing child protective services. Some staff spend
substantial portions of their time in a c t i v i t i e s not related to child
protection. However, ACYF does not record this time in any
systematic way. Our analysis relies on estimates provided by
individual caseworkers about the amount of time they actually spent
performing protective service functions.
We were unable to identify any widely accepted c r i t e r i a for assessing
the adequacy of staffing. Contacts with other states documented a
variety of methods for estimating staff needs. Although we used a
New Mexico weighting model and standards developed by the Chi Id
Welfare League of America to compare CPS workloads, we found no
c r i t e r i a for establishing an optimum staffing level. Determining the
optimum staffing level is a pol icy decision to be made by the
Legislature with input from agency s t a f f .
Steos Needed TQ
Determine Staff ina Levels
Determining the number of staff needed to investigate and manage a l l
appropriate reports of child abuse requires accurate data and objective
workload standards. Once the information and standards are in place,
ACYF w i l l be more able to manage present staff and request additional
s t a f f , i f needed.
ACYF must establish a management information system that provides
accurate and reliable information about key a c t i v i t i e s . Establishing
this system requires a policy that specifies and defines the information
to be reported. ACYF should inform a l l staff of this policy. ACYF also
needs to t r a i n s t a f f in how to report information. Supervisors should
ensure that the required information is reported in a timely, accurate
manner. Finally, central office staff should conduct periodic quality
control reviews to ensure the accuracy of reporting.
Accurate data alone w i l l not be sufficient to determine the number of
staff required, although it is a necessary f i r s t step. Workload
standards are also necessary in order to translate a c t i v i t y requirements
into staffing levels. Such standards must establish caseloads for staff
and distinguish among the different types of cases that can make up these
caseloads. Establishing standards requires a joint e f f o r t between ACYF
and the Legislature. ACYF's role is to demonstrate how different options
for selecting standards ' meet the goals for managing chi Id protective
service objectives and to estimate the costs of implementing these
options. In assuming this role, ACYF must provide objective research and
analysis to document i t s reconmended choices. The Legislature's role is
to select the option i t thinks is most appropriate within i t s established
funding constraints. In the absence of this type of joint e f f o r t ,
determining the appropriate staffing levels w i l l not be possible.
1. ACYF should continue i t s efforts to develop a management information
system that provides accurate, reliable data on child protective
service a c t i v i t i e s . The system should include well- defined policies
on reporting requirements, staff training, and adequate staff
supervision.
2. ACYF should use the information provided by i t s management
information system to develop and analyze options for staffing CPS
functions. The options should include recommended staffing standards
and the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for them.
3. The Legislature should consider establ ishing appropriate staffing
standards based on the information provided by ACYF. In doing so,
the Legislature may also wish to consider providing additional
full- time staff with funds that are now being used for contract staff.
4. ACYF should use the staffing standards to evaluate i t s current
staffing patterns and reassign staff as needed.
During the audit we developed other pertinent information regarding the
length of time cases remain in the CPS system and how quickly CPS
responds to reports of abuse and neglect.
Lenuth Of Time In System
The length of time a child remains in the CPS system varies from one day
to several years. Most of the ongoing cases active in October 1990 that
we reviewed had entered the system within the past 2 years. Of the
closed cases we reviewed, most were intake investigations that closed
within a few weeks of the i n i t i a l report. However, the cases that closed
after transfer to ongoing status remained in the system an average of 1
year or more, depending on the type of case plan.
We looked at the length of time cases remained in the CPS system in two
ways. Neither way is s t a t i s t i c a l l y precise because each is based on
cases that were originally selected for the purpose of evaluating
caseworker caseloads. We looked at the length of time that 2,179 ongoing
cases active in October 1990 had been in the system. We also looked at
the length of time between the opening and closure of 1,516 cases that
closed while we were conducting f i l e reviews. In categorizing these
cases for our analysis, we recorded the case plan at the time of closure
and did not include any information about previous case plans. ( For a
complete discussion of the methodology used for this analysis, see page
A- 20 of the Technical Appendix . 1
M
Active Case
Most of the 2,179 active ongoing cases in our October 1990 caseworker
review had been in the system 2 years or less. Of the active ongoing
cases in our review, 66 percent had entered the system during the
preceding 24 months.
Few long- term cases were identified during our f i l e review. We found
less than 10 percent ( 203) of the ongoing cases had been in the system
more than 5 years, and less than 1 percent ( 17) had been in the system
more than 10 years. According to CPS s t a f f , some cases remain in the
system for several years because a child may be removed from hislher home
and the fami ly situation does not improve sufficiently to al low the
chi Id's return. Although CPS may work for the chi ldets adopt ion, factors
such as age, special needs, or a v a i l a b i l i t y of placements may preclude an
adoption. I f other case goals, such as legal guardianship with a
relative, are not an option, long- term foster care may be the best option
available. Consequently, the child may remain under CPS supervision
u n t i l he or she reaches age 18.
M
Closed Cases
Our analysis of closed cases indicates that the length of time a case
remained in the system varied considerably between cases that closed at
intake and those that became ongoing cases. Most cases are closed after
a short intake investigation.
Intake cases - The majority of closed cases in our sample were closed
after a short investigation. According to CPS staff, cases closed at
intake are either invalid or i f valid, the child did not appear to be at
risk of future abuse. Cases closed at intake constituted 82 percent of
the 1,516 closed cases that we reviewed. The average length of time
needed to close these cases was 22 days; however, the majority were
closed within 15 days of the i n i t i a l report.
aclcloina cases - The remaining 18 percent of closed cases in our sample
were ongoing cases. For our analysis, we divided these cases into two
g roups :
In- Horng - These were cases that had a Remai n w i th Fam i l y case p Ian
at the time of closure. The average length of time necessary to
close this type of case was approximately 1 year; however, one- half
of these cases closed in 8 months or less.
Out- of- Homg - These were cases that had a Return to Fami ly or one of
the out- of- home placement case plans at the time of closure. The
average length of time necessary to close this type of case was
approximately 3 years; however, one- half of these cases closed in
approximately 2 years.
Table 12 shows the length of time the closed cases in the sample remained
in the system based on the three types of cases.
TABLE 12
LENGTH OF TIME NEEDED TO CLOSE CPS CASES
FOR A SELECTED SAMPLE OF CLOSED CASES
l ntake --- 0naoina Cases---
In- tknne Out- of- Home Total '
1 to 180 days 1 ,237 77 . 11 1 ,325
181 days to 1 year 3 66 8 77
More than 1 year but
less than 2 years 0
More than 2 years 0
Total number of
cases L a
Source: Office of the Auditor General, staff f i l e review of CPS cases.
CPS Res~ onse Time
CPS responds to most reports of alleged chi Id abuse within the time frame
established by i t s policy. However, in some cases response time
significantly exceeds policy requirements.
CPS has established policies that specify the time in which workers must
respond to reports. When reports involve potentially severe or
life- threatening situations, investigations must begin within 2 hours
after a case is assigned. Investigations of minor problems and less
harmful situations must begin within 1 work week. Table 13 describes the
four investigative p r i o r i t y levels of child abuse and the associated time
frame for a response to each. ( For a complete description of the
p r i o r i t y levels, see pages A- 10 of the Technical Appendix.)
TABLE 13
DESCRIPTIONS AND RESPONSE TIMES OF CPS PRIORITY LEVELS
P r i o r i t y
Leve l Descri~ tion
Response Time
After Assianment
One death, severe physical abuse, l i f e - 2 Rours
threatening medical neglect, immediate
danger/ child l e f t alone
Two
Three
Four
serious physical abuse, serious or
severe sexual abuse,
serious physical or medical neglect
moderate physical/ medical neglect
or sexual abuse, emotional abuse,
inadequate supervision
minor abuse and neglect, potential
abuse or neglect, exploitation,
substance exposed newborn
48 hours
2 work days
1 work week
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, ACYF Policy and
Procedures Manual.
Delays appear to occur not only in performing the investigation but also
in assigning cases for investigation. We reviewed CPS response time in
two ways. We measured the time between the i n i t i a l report and the onset
of the investigation without regard to assignment. Using this measure,
we found CPS responded in a t ime l y manner i n 83 percent of the cases we
reviewed. However, CPS administrators said that they base the timeliness
of responses on the date or time a case is assigned to a caseworker.
Using the CPS measure, CPS responded in a timely manner in 92 percent of
the cases we reviewed.
CPS staff noted that some delays occur for the following reasons:
A supervisor may delay assigning a report for investigation because
staff resources are limited and other p r i o r i t i e s take precedence.
Lower p r i o r i t y cases may not be transmitted from central telephone
intake u n t i l the day after they are received or longer and,
therefore, the amount of time before a case is assigned to a
caseworker i s i nc reased .
A supervisor may t r y to obtain more information before assigning a
case.
Although CPS responded in a timely manner in the majority of cases we
rev i ewed , the un t i me I y responses i n some cases i nvo I ved se r i ous
allegations. We identified 17 " p r i o r i t y one" reports where
investigations were not initiated within 2 hours of the report.(')
Thirteen of these reports were not assigned to a caseworker for 2 or more
days after the report was received; however, once assigned, they were
investigated in a timely manner. These cases were usually postponed less
than 5 days; one case was delayed 11 days. Three of the 17 cases were
assigned on the day the report was received; however, investigations were
not i n i t i a t e d within the recomnended time frames. One of these cases was
not assigned for 2 days and was not investigated for another 6 days.
( 1) We i d e n t i f i e d another 20 " p r i o r i t y one" cases where there was an apparent 1- day
delay. However, because response time was not included i n our statutory charge we had
not recorded the time of day the report was received when we collected our data. Not
knowing the time of day the cases were received, i t i s possible that CPS met i t s
response c r i t e r i o n i n these 20 cases.
We were unable to determine why these specific delays occurred. For
several cases we contacted the supervisor to determine the reason for the
delays. Because some of these cases had been i n the system a few years,
had been transferred from caseworker to caseworker, and the reasons for
delay had rarely been documented, supervisors were not able to provide an
explanation. In two cases the supervisor indicated that the intake
caseworker may have recorded the incorrect date, thereby causing i t to
appear as i f there had been a delay. In one case CPS delayed assigning
the case although action had been taken on this case before i t was
assigned to a caseworker.( i)
( 1) This case involved an abandoned infant that had been taken to the hospital and could
be released only to CPS custody. Although CPS had taken action, the case was not
assigned to a caseworker u n t i l the hospital was ready to release the infant.
A P P E N D I X I
TABLES OF CPS REPORT DISPOSITION BY DISTRICT
TABLE 14
CPS REPORT DISPOSITION BY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ABUSE FOR EACH DISTRICT
BETVEEN AUGUST 1. 1990 AID JANUARY 31. 1991
Appropriate For
Investigation
But Not
Investigated
I0
Disposition
Recorded
On CPSCR
Reports
Received
Information
Only Investigated
DISTRICT I
Death of Child
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor Abuse/ Neglect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Sexual Abuse
Total
DISTRICT I 1
Death of Child
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor Abuse/ Neglect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Sexual Abuse
Total
DISTRICT I11
Death of Child
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor Abuse/ Neglect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Sexual Abuse
Total
DISTRICT IV
Death o f C h i l d
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor Abuse/ Negiect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Sexual Abuse
Total
TABLE 14 Con't
CPS REPORT DISPOSITIW BY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ABUSE FOR EACH DISTRICT
BETUEEY AUGUST 1. 1990 AND JANUARY 31. 1991
Appropriate For N o
I n v e s t i g a t i o n D i s p o s i t i o n
Reports Information But Not Recorded
Received Only Investigated On CPSCR Investigated
DISTRICT V
Death o f C h i l d
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor AbuseINegLect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Total
DISTRICT VI
Death of Child
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Other
Physical Abuse
Potential/ Minor Abuse/ Neglect
Severe - Moderate Neglect
Sexual Abuse
Total
STATEU I DE TOTAL
Source: Office of the Auditor General, s t a f f anaiysis o f C h i l d Protective Services Central Registry
monthly reports between August 1, 1990 and January 31, 1991.
TABLE 15
CPS REPORT DISPOSITION BY PRIORITY LEVEL FOR EACH DISTRICT
BETWEEN AUGUST 1. 1990 AND JANUARY 31. 1991
Appropriate For
Investigation
P r i o r i t y Reports Information But Not
Level Received Only Investigated
NO
Disposition
Recorded
D i s t r i c t On CPSCR
DISTRICT I
Investigated
One 19 2 0
Tuo 1,360 5 64 13
Three 2,591 740 220
Four 5,291 2,898 - 358
Total
DISTRICT I 1 One 18 7 0 0
Two 96 1 375 17 12
Three 2,052 760 2 70 2 6
Four 1,377 - 671 - 321 - 25
Total
DISTRICT 111 One 5 3 4
Two 68 10
Three 314 4 4
Four - 5 15 - 218
Total
DISTRICT IV One 98 5
Two 137 17
Three 392 5 1
Four 857 - 326
Total
DISTRICT V One 3 2 3
Two 68 6
Three 222 4 8
Four 415 - 178
Total
DISTRICT V I One 69 1 1 0
Two 117 8 5 1
Three 347 3 5 2 0 0
Four - 540 - 128 - 43 - 1
Total
STATEWIDE
Source: Office of the Auditor General, s t a f f analysis of C h i l d P r o t e c t i v e Services Centrai Registry
monthly reports between August 1, 1990 and January 31, 1991.
APPENDIX II
T E C H N I C A L A P P E N D I X
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Introduction
This appendix describes the methodological design and procedures used to
determine caseload size, caseload mix, s t a f f i n g ratios, and the number
and type of reports CPS received.
ACYF i s organized into six d i s t r i c t s Statewide. The following l i s t
i d e n t i f i e s each d i s t r i c t , the location of each d i s t r i c t administrative
o f f i c e , and the counties that constitute each d i s t r i c t .
D i s t r i c t I: Phoenix - Maricopa County
D i s t r i c t II: Tucson - Pima County
D i s t r i c t I l l : Flagstaff - Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, and
Apache Counties
D i s t r i c t IV: Yuma - Yuma, Mohave, and La Paz Counties
D i s t r i c t V: Casa Grande - Pinal and Gila Counties
D i s t r i c t V I : Bisbee - Cochise, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, and
Graham Count i es
A t the outset of the study we met with numerous DES ACYF s t a f f to become
familiar with CPS operations. We v i s i t e d offices in five of the six ACYF
d i s t r i c t s and interviewed program managers, assistant program managers,
supervisors, caseworkers, and telephone intake s t a f f in the six
d i s t r i c t s . We accompanied caseworkers as they performed investigations
and case management a c t i v i t i e s and met with telephone intake s t a f f during
the time they received c a l l s from the public. In addition to our
meetings with CPS s t a f f , we also met with central o f f i c e administrators
to gain an understanding of policies and procedures, Statewide goals, and
administrative concerns regarding CPS operations.
Sam~ linq
Methodology
The research design for determining caseload size, caseload mix, and
s t a f f i n g ratios was based on a Statewide sample of caseworkers and a f i l e
review of their cases that were active during October 1990.
From our v i s i t s to local offices and interviews, we concluded that a
Statewide sample was needed. Staff identified several factors
peculiar to their office or d i s t r i c t that may affect case management. Of
particular concern was the differences between urban and rural offices,
such as the a v a i l a b i l i t y of placements and traveling long distances to
v i s i t children in rural areas. In addition, we identified differences in
operations not only among d i s t r i c t s but also among local offices that may
affect caseload. We concluded that each d i s t r i c t must be represented in
the study.
Because the primary informat ion requested by the Legislature concerned
the number of cases handled by a caseworker, we selected the caseworker
as the unit of analysis. Although numerous ACYF employees are involved
in CPS a c t i v i t i e s , we defined the population to include only those
caseworkers that investigate reports of abuse and directly perform
ongoing case management functions. Our definition excludes telephone
intake s t a f f , parent aides, day care, foster home and adoptive home
licensing s t a f f , and nightlweekend staff and supervisors that may manage
some cases.
We a l so exc l uded the adopt ion and young adu l t program un i ts i n Mar i copa
County from our study population. When we i n i t i a l l y defined the
population, we viewed these units as organizationally separate from the
typical CPS units. However, during the course of the study we concluded
that their exclusion may influence the result of certain analyses, such
as the length of time cases remain in the system. For this reason, we
later collected information from the population of the adoption and young
adult program units to supplement selected analyses.
To determine the population of caseworkers, we identified caseworkers
appearing on ACYF organizational charts. We then contacted unit
supervisors or area program managers to confirm that those caseworkers
were working in their respective units in October 1990, to ascertain
their specific duties, i f they were contract or State employees, and to
identify any additional caseworkers. The defined population, including
contract caseworkers, totaled 391 casewoikers Statewide.
The size of the sample was calculated by using the generally accepted
confidence level of 95 percent with a r e l i a b i l i t y factor of plus or minus
4 percent. The required sample size totaled 236 caseworkers.
Recognizing that some caseworkers selected in the sample may have to be
A- 5
replaced because of vacancies or for other reasons, we elected to over-sample
by 35 caseworkers, which resulted in a total sample of 271
caseworkers. Caseworkers were then randomly selected and identified by
d i s t r i c t and unit. The sample adequately represents the caseworker
population by d i s t r i c t .
We also performed a follow- up analysis i n D i s t r i c t I for February 1991.
At the time of our original data collection, D i s t r i c t I was in the
process of hiring several new caseworkers and reorganizing offices. CPS
administrators said that most new employees should be hired by January
1991. Because of the influx of new caseworkers, we f e l t that caseload
size might be influenced. Therefore, we decided to collect data a second
time to determine the i n i t i a l impact that additional employees might have
on caseload size. We followed the same procedures in determining the
population. Once the population was confirmed, we randomly selected 88
caseworkers and an additional 20 caseworkers in the event we needed to
replace any of the staff i n i t i a l l y selected.
Data Collection
Data collection began in early November 1990 and continued through
January 1991. Data was collected for cases that were active during
October 1990. According to ACYF administrators, October 1990 was a good
month to sample because i t adequately represented an average month for
reports. It is not a month that typically has an unusually high number
of calls, such as September because of the start of school or the summer
months that typically have fewer reports. A month time frame was also
considered an adequate period of time to encapsulate caseload
information. To identify active cases, we used the case count summary
completed at the end of the month by each caseworker. This summary l i s t s
a l l cases handled by the caseworker during the month.
Before reviewing case f i l e s , Auditor General staff took steps to verify
that case count sumnaries were accurate. I f available, auditors reviewed
supervisor logs to ensure that al l cases that had been assigned by the
supervisor appeared on the case count summary. Because not al l units
maintain supervisor logs and not a l l logs are kept in the same manner, we
were unable to review supervisor logs in every unit. Auditors also
compared the sumnary against the actual case f i l e to ensure that a l l
appropriate cases in the caseworker's possession had been listed and that
a l l cases listed could be accounted for.
Auditors reviewed each caseworker's cases for the month and collected the
fol lowing informat ion for each case:
Caseworker identification information - name, location, sample
number, and type of worker
Dates - date of report, date of case assignment, date of i n i t i a l
contact, date case was transferred to ongoing status, and date of
case closure
P r i o r i t i e s at the time of telephone intake and after report
investigation
Characteristics of the case - intake or ongoing, new case in October
1990, open or closed in October 1990, and transferred to another
caseworker
Case plan as of October 1990
Number of children served
During the f i l e reviews auditors also verified that cases appearing on
the summaries were open in October 1990. For example, even though a case
appeared on the October 1990 end- of- the- month summary, the information in
some f i l e s stated that the case had been closed in September 1990. In
these instances, the case was not included in our database. There were
also instances in which the documentation in a f i l e indicated no work had
been done on the case for several months. In these instances, auditors
spoke with the caseworker or supervisor to determine i f recent contact
had been made on the case or i f i t should have been closed. I f i t should
have been closed, the case was not included in the database.
In addition to a f i le review, we also surveyed caseworkers to obtain the
information needed for the analysis. We obtained information regarding
their type and length of employment with CPS; estimates of the amount of
time they spent on intake, ongoing, or other ACYF functions during
October 1990, and i f they were full- time or part- time employees.
After completing the data collection phase, we spent several weeks
verifying information, collecting missing forms or information, and
locating cases that had not been entered into the database. We also
tested the internal consistency of the information ( such as intake
caseworkers' cases that should have been designated as intake rather than
ongoing cases) and verified questionable entries. In total we reviewed
various f i l e s that contained information from more than 5,000 cases.
For the follow- up analysis of Maricopa County, we collected data for
February 1991. We obtained this follow- up information from cases that
were active in February 1991 and performed the same general procedures as
we did for the i n i t i a l collection e f f o r t .
DATA ANALYSIS
Number And
Type Of Reports
To determine the number and types of reports, we compiled numbers from
CPS Central Registry reports from August 1, 1990 through January 31,
1991. Central Registry reports contain information about each incident of
abuse reported to CPS. We compiled this information to determine the
number and types of incidents reported, the p r i o r i t y assigned to each at
the time the incident was reported, and the disposition of each report.
Because we were aware that some data fields in the Central Registry are
not reliable, we performed a limited test of the specific fields we would
be using. We collected intake forms at local offices and then compared
these forms to the Central Registry information. We did this to confirm
that the information had been entered correctly into the Central
Registry. Although we identified a few errors, we were reasonably
assured that the number of reports received and i n i t i a l p r i o r i t y
characteristics assigned to data fields were accurately recorded.
However, the " after investigation" f i e l d does not appear to be complete.
We found that 32 percent of the reports did not have an " after
investigationI1 finding entered. This limited our a b i l i t y to accurately
determine the number of valid or invalid reports.
To determine the type of report, we used CPS p r i o r i t y codes to identify
the types of abuse cases reported to CPS. We performed two analyses for
each type of report. The f i r s t analysis identified and segregated
reports in terms of the p r i o r i t y level assigned to the case. The
p r i o r i t y code is outlined in DES ACYF policy and determines the amount of
time within which a caseworker must respond to a report. Table 16
provides a l i s t of the CPS p r i o r i t y levels, a description of the
allegations, and the prescribed response time for each.
TABLE 16
DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGATIONS
AND RESPONSE TIMES OF CPS BY
PRIORITY LEVELS AND CHARACTERISTICS
P r i o r i t y Response Time
Level Characteristic Description of Alleeation After Assianment
One 01 Death of a Child 2 hours
02 Severe Physical Abuse
03 Life- Threatening
Medical Neglect
04 Reserved
05 Immediate Danger/
Chi Id Left Alone
06 Infant Doe - ( chi Id
younger than 12 months
being deprived of necessary
medical care or nourishment)
Two
Three
Fou r
07 Ser i ous Phys i ca l Abuse
08 Serious Physical/
Medical Neglect
09 Severe Sexual Abuse
10 Serious Sexual Abuse
48 hours
11 Moderate Physical Abuse 2 work days
12 Moderate Physical/
Medical Neglect
13 Moderate Sexual Abuse
14 Emotional Abuse
15 Reserved
16 l nadequat e Superv i s i on
17 Dependent Ch i l d Under
Age 12
18 Minor Abuse and Neglect 1 work week
19 Potential Abuse or Neglect
20 Dependent Child Over Age 12
21 Exploitation
22 Substance- Exposed Newborn
23 Delinquent/ lncorrigible
Child Under Age 8
Source: Department of Economic Security, ACYF policy and procedures
manual .
By p r i o r i t y level, we calculated the total number of reports, the total
number investigated, and the disposition.
The second analysis identified the number and type of reports by type of
abuse. We grouped cases with similar characteristics from the four
p r i o r i t y levels. For example, the sex abuse category includes
characteristic numbers 9, 10, and 13. We then calculated the number of
reports, the number investigated and the disposition based on abuse type.
Table 17 l i s t s the abuse types and the corresponding p r i o r i t y
characteristics.
TABLE 17
ABUSE TYPES AND CORRESPONDING CHARACTERISTICS
Abuse Tvpes Corres~ ondina Characteristics
Death
Dependent Child
Emotional Abuse
Lack of Supervision
Physical Abuse
Potential and Minor Abuse/ Negligence
Neg l ec t
Sex Abuse
Other
Caseload Size
We determined the size of the average CPS caseload in two ways: for a l l
ful I- t ime caseworkers and for each type of caseworker, i . e., intake and
ongoing caseworkers. To identify caseworkers that have an excessive
number of cases or an excessive number of the most d i f f i c u l t types of
cases, we app l i ed a case weight i ng component. ( See page 16 for the
results of the case weighting.)
Caseload size for full- time caseworkera - Of 236 caseworkers in the
sample, we identified 201 performing case management a c t i v i t i e s
ful I- t ime. To determine average caseload size for ful I- t ime caseworkers,
we calculated the total number of cases these caseworkers managed in
October 1990 and then divided this figure by the total number of
full- time caseworkers. We determined the average caseload for full- time
caseworkers Statewide and also by d i s t r i c t .
Caseload size for the t v ~ e s of caseworkers - To determine average
caseload size by type of caseworker, we grouped caseworkers by the type
of case they manage. For purposes of this study, we grouped caseworkers
into four categories: intake, ongoing, mixed, and other mix.
Intake caseworkers primarily perform investigative a c t i v i t i e s and
i n i t i a t e services. An intake caseworker may also assess the child's
and family's situation and their a b i l i t y to change, and make
recommendations to the court. Intake cases that are not sent to
ongoing status are typically closed within 2 to 3 weeks.
Onwina caseworkers pr imar i ly per form case management services for
cases that remain in the system from several months to several years.
An ongoing caseworker coordinates services and the a c t i v i t i e s of the
parties involved, monitors and assesses the child's and family's
progress, and makes recommendations to the courts.
Mixed caseworkers manage both intake and ongoing cases and per form
functions appropriate for each type of case.
Other mix caseworkers may manage intake, ongoing , or both intake and
ongoing cases in addition to performing other ACYF functions such as
licensing.
The following steps were taken to determine caseload size.
1. For each caseworker group, we calculated the total number of cases
handled by these caseworkers during October 1990.
2. We then divided the total number of cases for each group by the total
number of caseworkers in each group. We determined the average
caseload size for each group of caseworkers by d i s t r i c t and
Statewide. In some d i s t r i c t s because there were so few mixed and
other mix caseworkers, a figure for average caseload size was not
meaningful; therefore, this figure is not presented.
3. We repeated the analysis for a February 1991 sample in D i s t r i c t I.
Staff ina Ratiq
The staffing ratio analysis is similar to the caseload size analysis.
However, this analysis factors in the percentage of time a l l sampled
caseworkers devoted to intake and ongoing a c t i v i t i e s . Factoring in the
amount of time the 236 sampled caseworkers spent on CPS a c t i v i t i e s allows
us to determine the number of Full- Time Equivalent ( FTE) caseworkers and
the ratio of cases to each FTE.
To determine the amount of time caseworkers devoted to CPS duties and
other ACYF functions, we asked sampled caseworkers to estimate the time
they spent in intake, ongoing, and other ACYF a c t i v i t i e s such as
licensing functions for October 1990. We also considered i f they were
ful I- or part- time caseworkers.
To determine staffing ratios we calculated the following:
1. the total number of intake and ongoing cases by d i s t r i c t
2. the amount of time FTEs spent on intake and ongoing a c t i v i t i e s . ( For
caseworkers that performed not only intake and ongoing functions, but
also other ACYF a c t i v i t i e s , we included in our calculation only the
portion of FTE time that was related to intake and ongoing
a c t i v i t i e s . ) The following steps describe the specific calculations
and Exhibit A i l l u s t r a t e s the calculations described.
the total FTEs ( column 2 in Exhibit A)
0 total portionofFTE timespenton i n t a k e a c t i v i t i e s ( column5)
total portionofFTE timespentonongoingactivities ( column6)
total portion of FTE time spent on CPS a c t i v i t i e s ( column 7)
3. total number of cases for each category divided by the total number of
FTEs for each category of caseworker. For example, the total number of
intake cases was divided by total number of intake FTEs
4. repeated the analysis of data for D i s t r i c t I for February 1991
EXHIBIT A
CALCULATIONS OF CPS CASEWORKER TIME BY ACTIVITY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Intake Ongoing Intake Ongoing Intake/ Ongoing
Percentage Percentage Portion Portion Portion Combined
Caseworker FTE pf T i l g pf Ting FTE F- TE F- TE
A 0.5 0% 100% 0 . O 0.5 0.5
B 1.0 100 0 1 . o 0 . o 1 . o
C 1 . O 60 40 0.6 0.4 1 . O
D 1 . O 40 30 0.4 0.3 0.7
We performed a similar analysis by d i s t r i c t to determine what staffing
ratios would be i f CPS investigated 100 percent of reports considered
appropriate for investigation. This analysis is based on estimates of
the number of additional cases CPS caseworkers would have handled i f a l l
reports designated as " appropriate for investigation but not
investigated" had been investigated. However, because we suspect that
not a l l cases appropriate for investigation are being classified as such,
this analysis provides a minimum expected increase in staffing ratios.
To determine staffing ratios for an increased investigation rate, we took
the fol lowing steps.
a CPS monthly reports from August 1, 1990 through January 31, 1991 were
reviewed to document the number of reports investigated and the
number of reports recorded as " appropriate for investigation but not
investigated."
a A ratio of the reports designated as " appropriate for investigation
but not investigated" to those that were investigated was calculated
for each d i s t r i c t .
Each d i s t r i c t ' s ratio was converted to a multiplier.
The multiplier was applied to each d i s t r i c t ' s actual volume of
investigations managed by the sample caseworkers for October 1990.
The number of cases which would have been investigated by this group
with an increased investigation rate was extrapolated.
The previously described staffing ratio analysis was repeated;
however, the number of extrapolated cases rather than the number of
cases actually managed was used.
Caseload Mix
The case load mix analysis describes the makeup of act ive cases. We
analyzed caseload mix three ways: a proportional breakout of the number
of active intake versus ongoing cases; an analysis of the investigative
findings that brought the case to ongoing case management services; and
an analysis of October 1990 case plans for active ongoing cases.
To determine the proportion of intake and ongoing cases, we took the
following steps.
We identified cases that appeared twice in the database. Because we
did not want to double count these cases, we determined which record
shou Id be excluded from the analysis. For example, a case may have
been an intake case and was transferred to another intake
caseworker. In this instance we included only one intake record for
this analysis.
We identified both intake and ongoing cases. We calculated totals
for both types of cases and determined that 35 percent of the active
cases in our sample for October 1990 were intake cases and 65 percent
were ongoing cases.
We reviewed monthly CPS reports of case count summaries. Because our
review was not a s t a t i s t i c a l sample of cases, we wanted to ensure
that the proportion in our review sample was comparable to CPS
records. The months we reviewed confirmed the approximate breakout
by month of one- th i rd i ntake cases and two- t h i rds ongo i ng cases.
To determine the type of abuse that brought cases to ongoing services, we
i dent i f i ed the ongoing cases i n our review samp l e. The type of abuse i s
identified by the abuse finding that was assigned to the case based on
the investigation. The analysis is based on the most serious finding of
abuse or neglect against any of the children involved.
We took the following steps to determine case mix by investigative
finding for ongoing cases active in October 1990.
We identified duplicates in the database as previously described.
We identified ongoing cases active in October 1990. There were 2,225
ongoing cases. ( This excludes Interstate Compact on the Place of
Children cases because they originated in another state. Courtesy
supervision cases were also excluded because investigative findings
and dates were not always in the f i l e maintained by the supervising
caseworker . )
Of the 2,225 cases we identified 139 cases that did not include the
" after investigation" characteristic.
We prepared distributions by " after investigationN characteristics to
determine the mix of cases requiring ongoing services. The
distributions were prepared Statewide.
We grouped investigative findings into similar abuse- type categories.
For ongoing cases, the case plan is a more descriptive indicator of type
of case than p r i o r i t y level characteristics. The case plan is the stated
goal of the case and directs case management. CPS policy l i s t s seven
major case plans: Remain with Family, Return to Fami ly, Placement with
Relatives, Adoption, Legal Guardianship, Long- Term Foster Care, and
l ndependen t L i v i ng .
For purposes of this study we have used additional case plan codes.
Caseworkers f requen t l y use a case p l an of Severance and Adopt ion when the
case goal is adoption but the rights of the parents have not yet been
severed. We also recorded children from other states that are supervised
by Arizona caseworkers as an Interstate Compact on the Place of Children
case plan. Also, cases that originate and are maintained in one Arizona
d i s t r i c t but are supervised by a caseworker in another d i s t r i c t are
termed a Courtesy Supervision case plan. In addition, we also designated
intake cases with an Intake case plan rather than one of the seven case
plans listed. We did so because we wanted to distinguish intake cases
from ongoing cases in certain analyses.
We took the following steps to determine case mix by case plan for a l l
active ongoing cases.
We reviewed cases based on case plan. For cases with multiple case
plans, only the most time- intensive case plan was selected. ( Based
on a caseworker survey, we determined which case plans typically
require the most work. For a description of the survey results, see
page A- 19.)
We identified the ongoing cases in October 1990. Twelve of the 2,464
cases did not have a case plan.
We prepared a Statewide distribution by case plan.
Case Weitaht inq
Because caseload averages and staffing ratios alone do not provide a
complete picture of caseload size, due to the many factors involved in
cases, we included a case weighting component to the analysis. The
degree of d i f f i c u l t y of a case or the amount of time required to manage a
case can be influenced by several factors. One case may consist of only
one child, another may consist of several children. Siblings may be
placed in more than one foster home; thus, a caseworker may be required
to v i s i t more than one location. Court requirements for dependent
children may also place additional work on caseworkers. To further
assess case load s i ze and mix , we used case we i gh t i ng to account for the
various factors and to provide a more complete picture.
During the i n i t i a l phase of the study we reviewed case weighting methods
used within CPS and in other states. We selected the model used by
New Mexico because i t has established caseload standards, is easily
adaptable to Arizona, and was recomnended by experts in the f i e l d of
child protective services.
We are not specifically recomnending that Arizona CPS adopt the New
Mexico model. Rather, we are using this model as a method of comparison
to i l l u s t r a t e that Caseload A consisting of X number of cases is not
necessarily equal to Caseload B with the same number of cases.
New Mexico Uodel - New Mexico developed a caseload formula to comply with
a consent decree of the Federal court. A formula was developed to
determine maximum caseload size for mixed caseloads. ( Mixed caseloads in
this instance refers to the different types of case plans such as Return
Home, Adoption, Long- Term Foster Care, etc.) The formula was developed
by conducting extensive interviews to determine the a c t i v i t i e s involved
in each case plan and the percentage of time those a c t i v i t i e s required.
The Return Home case plan was determined to be the most time- intensive
case plan and became the standard against which to compare other case
plans.
In addition, New Mexico staff assumed that while other case plans might
require equivalent amounts of time, no case plan would require more time
than the Return Home case plan. For example, New Mexico determined that
a case plan with the goal of Adoption requires the same amount of time as
a case plan with the goal of Return Home. A Long- Term Foster Care case
plan requires only 40 percent of the time i t takes to handle one ~ et; rn
Home case plan. Case points were then established based on the
percentage of time assigned to each case. , Return Home and Adoption case
plans were assigned 100 points, and the Long- Term Foster Care case plan
was assigned 40 points.
The court decree also dictated maximum caseload standards. A caseload
could not consist of more than 20 families ( as defined by the court
decree) or contain more than 35 children in out of home placements.
Using these standards, the New Mexico model established a 2,000 point
l i m i t per caseload. This was determined by mu1 tiplying 20 fami lies by
100 points assigned the Return to Home case plan.
We determined that the New Mexico model could be customized using Arizona
case plans. Due to time limitations of our study, we were not able to
conduct extensive interviews to determine a c t i v i t i e s and the percentage
of time associated with those a c t i v i t i e s as did New Mexico. However,
from the interviews we conducted during the i n i t i a l phase of our study,
we concluded that, l i k e New Mexico, Arizona's Return to Family case plan
is the most time- intensive. We then established a Return to Family case
plan as the model case plan and assigned i t 100 points.
To establish the relationship of other case plans to the model case plan,
we surveyed caseworkers selected in our original sample that had recent
experience with ongoing cases. We explained the New Mexico model to them
and then asked them to estimate the proportion of time each case plan
required compared to the model case plan. We asked caseworkers to base
the estimates on their overall experience with the majority or typical
cases under each case plan rather than extreme cases. I f they had no
experience with a particular case plan, we asked them to mark i t as Ifnot
applicable." For intake caseworkers, we requested that they f i l l out the
survey only i f they had managed ongoing cases within the last year or i f
they functioned as an intake/ ongoing caseworker.
We conducted s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the responses and, based on the
responses, selected weighting factors for each case plan that best
summarized the caseworkersv experience. We reviewed the results with our
methodologist and discussed which measure of central tendency ( mean,
median, or mode) would most accurately measure the caseworkersv norm'al
experiences. The mode ( the value occurring most frequently) and the
median ( the value in a distribution in which 50 percent of the values l i e
above and 50 percent l i e below i t ) were selected. We selected these
measures of central tendency over the mean ( the average) because out lying
responses at both ends of the distribution distort the mean. In most
cases, the mode and median were identical or differed only s l i g h t l y . For
those case plans in which the difference was greater than a few points,
we selected the mode because we f e l t i t most accurately represents the
majority of caseworkers' responses. In cases where the majority opinion
was unclear ( bi- modal distributions), we selected the median value at the
center of the distribution, which f e l l between the modes.
After the data was compiled, we met with ACYF administrators and reviewed
the results with them. We also asked a small group of supervisors and
area program managers to review the results and assign an appropriate
point value to the Adopt ion case plan because we had not asked
caseworkers to do this in the original survey. Although there was no
consensus on the number of points assigned to a l l case plans, the
reviewers generally agreed with the results or disagreed only by a few
points. The Long- Term Foster Care and lndependent Living case plans and
Intake had the greatest diversity of opinion. We consulted our
methodologist and concluded that the dissenting opinions did not present
sufficient reasons to override the survey results. We elected to use the
original survey results and the reviewers' point value for Adoption case
plan as presented in Exhibit B.
EXHIBIT B
POINTS ASSIGNED TO SURVEY CASE PLANS
Case Plan
Return to Family
Severance and Adoption
l ntake
Remain with Family
Placement with Relative
Adopt i on
Legal Guardianship
ICPC/ Courtesy Supervision
Long- Term Foster Care
lndependent Living
Points
b ~ l i c a t i o no f case weiahtincr nodel to Arizona caseloads - To apply a
case weighting model to Arizona caseloads, we collected data on case
plans as of October 1990 and also data for case plans in D i s t r i c t I as of
February 1991. Some cases with multiple children may have multiple case
plans. For example, a case with three children may have as many as three
case plans: one child may have a Remain with Family case plan, the second
chi Id may have a Placement with Relative case plan, and the third chi Id
may have a Return to Family case plan. Because the case weighting
formula is designed to use the most time- intensive case plan, we used the
case plan with the highest point value for our calculations.
To determine the weighted caseload, we took the following steps.
1. We applied the respective point values to each case on every
caseworker's caseload and totaled the points.
2. We compared each weighted caseload to the maximum point value. For
a full- time CPS caseworker the maximum point value was 2,000 points
per caseload. For caseworkers that were less than full- time CPS
caseworkers, the point value was standardized based on the percentage
of time spent on CPS a c t i v i t i e s . For example, i f an other mix
caseworker spends 75 percent of hidher time on CPS, then we adjusted
the cap to 75 percent of 2,000 points or 1,500 points.
3. We developed ranges based on the percentage of the cap and determined
the number of caseworkers by d i s t r i c t and Statewide that fel l within
those ranges. For example, 50 caseworkers carried weighted caseloads
that equaled less than 50 percent of the cap. Forty- four caseworkers
exceeded the cap.
To determine the length of time each case has been in the CPS system we
performed various analyses. We concluded separate analyses should be
performed for intake and ongoing cases because the majority of intake
cases are closed within a few weeks and those cases passed to ongoing
status typically take several months, even years to resolve. . A
determination of the average length of time each case remains in the
system would be distorted by the extreme nature of the two categories.
In addition, the majority of cases we reviewed were open at the time of
our review. The analysis provides information on the length of time
active ongoing cases have been in the system but provides no information
about the length of time necessary to resolve a case. Therefore, we
performed a separate analysis of the cases that closed during our review
in an attempt to obtain some information about the length of time cases
remain in the CPS system.
The case longevity analyses are not s t a t i s t i c a l ; therefore, the results
cannot be inferred on the population of cases. Because the caseworker
was the primary unit of analysis, the sample drawn was based on
caseworkers and not cases. However, in reviewing caseworkers' f i l e s we
reviewed over 3,600 cases; over 2,100 active ongoing cases and over 1,500
closed cases. Because of the number of cases reviewed, we think our
analysis does provide some indication of the length of time cases remain
in the system even though i t lacks s t a t i s t i c a l precision.
To determine the length of time active ongoing cases remain in the CPS
system, we performed the fol lowing steps.
1. We identified duplicate cases in the database, as previously
described, so as not to double count them in this analysis.
2. We defined the entry date of a case as the date of the report or the
date of the incident that opened the current case. A family may have
many contacts with CPS over several years, and once a case is opened,
subsequent reports may also be made and investigated by CPS.
However, during our f i l e review, we identified the report that
brought the case into CPS but had not been resolved as of October 31,
1990. A l l dates collected are based on the report for that episode.
3. We identified the number of ongoing cases ( 2,179) and determined the
length of time each case had been in the CPS system.
4. We prepared a distribution of cases by year and month and then
determined ranges.
The second analysis examined cases that had closed during the time of our
review. For this analysis the time frame is not the same for each office
visited. Cases were selected because they were active in October 1990
( and February 1991 in D i s t r i c t I) but could have closed at any time
during our review. For example, when we visited the Page office in mid
November 1990, we captured the dates of the cases that had closed up
u n t i l the time of our v i s i t . However, we visited the Show Low o f f i c e i n
mid January 1991. It is possible that we may have captured a larger
number of closed cases there because these had two additional months to
close.
In addition, we included closed cases from the D i s t r i c t I adoption and
young adult program units. As noted previously, these units were
exc luded from our caseworker samp le. However, because these cases have
the potential of being in the system for a longer period of time, they
should be considered in an analysis of the length of time cases remain in
the CPS system. Therefore, we collected information on the cases that
closed in the units in October 1990 and included them in our analysis of
c I osed cases.
To determine the length of time required to close a case, we took the
fol lowing steps.
1. We identified a l l closed cases ( 1,516).
2. We determined the total number of days the cases remained in the CPS
system before closure ( the date of closure minus the date of the
report 1.
3. We distributed the number of days the cases remained in the system
into three categories: intake cases, ongoing in- home cases ( cases
with a Remain with Fami ly case plan), and ongoing cases with
out- of- home placement case plans ( based on the case plan at the time
of closure.)
These analyses are reported Statewide only and not by d i s t r i c t because of
the inconsistent time frame, the addition of D i s t r i c t I adoption and
young adult program unit cases, and the number of closed cases in some
categories of cases was too small to provide meaningful d i s t r i c t
informat ion.
Rewonse Timg
To determine how quickly CPS responds to allegations of abuse, we
compared the date of contact against the date a report was made and
against the date a case was assigned to a caseworker.
CPS policy dictates how quickly investigations of reports of abuse should
be initiated. The fol lowing l i s t b r i e f l y states the required response
times. ( For more information on p r i o r i t i e s and required response times,
see page A- 10. )
Priority One - immediate response but no longer than 2 hours.
Priority Two - prompt response but no longer than 48 hours.
Priority Three - prompt response but no l